^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  iC 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa 
BV   110    .J87    1867    c.l  ^ 


A  reply  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
George  Junkin's  treatise 


/ 

A    REPLY 


REV.  DR.  GEORGE  JUNKIN'S  TREATISE 


ENTITLED 


^SABBATISMOS;' 


JUSTIN  MARTYR. 


fomplafnts  a«  fntlj  f)£arlr,  JJttpIj  fottsibtr'if, 
anir  5|i££&ils  nform'Ji,  t^tn  is  tt)t  utmost  ioun&  of 
tihil  Ufierts  attaiit'lr,  tbat  hiist  m£ti  look  for. 

MILTON. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

T.  ELLWOOD  ZELL,  PUBLISHER, 

17  &  19  S.  Sixth  St. 

1867. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1867, 

By  T.  Ellwood  Zell, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


CAXTOPf   PRESS  OF   SHERMAN   k  CO. 


PREFACE. 


The  writer  of  this  "  Eeply"  at  one  time  held  the  same 
views  upon  the  "Sabbath  Question,"  popularly  so  called, 
as  those  entertained  by  the  author  of  *'Sabbatismos;" 
having,  unfortunately,  during  many  years  of  his  life, 
taken  for  granted  that  that  must  be  true  which,  without 
qualification,  was  so  positively  asserted.  He  does  not 
now  recollect  what  excited  a  spirit  of  inquiry,  but  he 
began  and  pursued  his  examinations  in  silence,  knowing 
that  any  utterance  of  dissent  from  the  commonly  re- 
ceived opinions  would  be  denounced  as  rank  infidelity, — 
an  easy  and  unscrupulous  answer,  and  one,  alas !  too 
often  resorted  to  against  those  who  venture  to  question 
the  verity  of  a  religious  dogma. 

Surprised  he  was  to  find  how  much  had  been  assumed 
as  undeniable,  without  even  the  semblance  of  a  proof; 
how  much,  he  regrets  to  say,  was  disingenuously  ex- 
plained ]  how  much  apparently  wilfully  misunderstood; 
and  how  much  suppressed. 

When  the  treatise  under  review  came  under  his  notice, 
he  found  that  it  abounded,  to  a  greater  extent  than  any 
he  had  seen,  with  the  same  gratuitous  assumptions,  and 
some  of  the  other  shortcomings  to  which  he  has  just  re- 
ferfed.    And  as  it  was  written  with  the  avowed  purpose 


IV  PREFACE. 

of  affecting  public  opinion  upon  the  religious  unlawful-, 
ness  of  running  street  cars  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  '] 
and  as  no  one  seemed  disposed  to  reply  to  it,  the  writer, 
whose  convictions  were  the  result  of  much  deliberation, 
and,  as  he  trusts,  of  candid  and  unbiassed  investigation, 
determined  to  do  so. 

There  is  evidently  but  one  alternative  with  the  author 
of  '^Sabbatismos'^  and   those  who   hold   similar   senti- 
ments, which  is,  that  you  shall   accept   their  doctrine 
without  questioning  it,  or  expect   to  be  charged  with 
skepticism.     Is  not  the  Sabbath  a  good  institution,  say 
they;  would  you  wish  to  see  it  abolished,  as  was  done 
during  the  Eeign  of  Terror?  would  not  such  a  result  be 
fraught  with  disaster  to  the  morals  of  the  community 
and  the  good  of  society?  or,  in  the  words  of  our  author,? 
would  you  ^^force'^  people  "to  rush  away  from  the  holy  ■• 
sanctuaries  int^  haunts  of  dissipation;  the  wayside  traps  ! 
in  the  country,  whence  they  return  fatigued,  wearied,  , 
and  worn  down  with  recreation,  if  not  battered,  bruised,  '■ 
and  bloody,  the  most  natural  and  not  uncommon  result 
of  worshipping  at  the  shrine  of  Bacchus"  (p.  204).     To 
this  unfair  method  of  exciting  the  prejudices  of  one  por- 
tion of  the  community  against  another,  we  object,  and 
reply  that  the  wish  of  those  who  favor  the  removal  of 
the  restriction  is  not  to  abolish  the  Sabbath.     It  is  not 
to  induce  the  people   to  leave  the  "  holy  sanctuaries,'' 
and  who,  according  to  our  author,  need  but  the  means 
of  escape  to  return,  sad  to  say,  "  battered,  bruised,  and 
bloody."     It  is  not  to  undermine  the  morals  of  society. 
It  is  not  to  bring  ruin  upon  the  state. 

The  wish,  however,  is  to  abolish  a  legal  restriction 
which  exists,  but  which  is  based  upon  a  religious  restric- 
tion which  has  ceased  to  exist. 


PREFACE.  V 

As  a  temporal  and  political  iDstitution,  the  observance 
of  a  stated  day  of  physical  rest  for  man  and  the  animal 
creation  may  be,  under  limitations^  a  wise  provision,  but 
we  claim  the  largest  liberty  consistent  with  the  general 
good.  It  may  be  a  difficult  undertaking  to  adjust  the 
exact  boundary  between  liberty  and  license.  But  this 
is  a  problem  which  has  puzzled  political  philosophers 
from  the  infancy  of  society  to  our  own  day.  When  he 
is  born  who  shall  solve  this  secret,  honors  will  be  lav- 
ished on  him  while  living;  and  dead,  his  memory  will  be 
held  in  veneration  by  his  grateful  country,  for  he  will 
have  discovered  the  perfection  of  all  government;  and 
if  the  people  be  virtuous,  they  will  have  reached  the 
height  of  human  freedom. 

The  opponents  of  running  the  cars  base  their  objec- 
tions mainly  upon  the  supposition  that  the  people  are 
immoral;  that  they  are  not  to  be  trusted  with  their  own 
liberties ;  that  so  corrupt  is  the  heart  that  the  privilege 
of  unrestrained  locomotion  which  one  who  is  able  may 
indulge,  without  sin,  upon  a  weekday,  becomes  with  him 
who  is  unable  a  sin,  should  he  indulge  in  it  upon  Sunday; 
that  the  removal  of  this  legal  restraint  will  result  in  a 
standing  temptation  to  a  breach  of  the  peace  and  an 
occasion  for  the  wildest  license;  that  a  kind  Providence 
looks  with  benignant  approval  upon  the  conduct  of  a 
provident  parent  who,  for  the  sake  of  his  children,  may 
seek  the  country  upon  a  secular  day,  while  it  frowns  in 
anger  upon  another  who,  with  no  ability  to  leave  his 
home  upon  a  weekday,  shall,  from  the  same  motives,  do 
so  upon  a  Sunday.  The  line  between  a  sinless  and  a 
sinful  act  has  a  broader  and  a  darker  margin  than  this. 
The  freedom  which  Boston,  in  this  respect,  enjoys,  has 
not,  that  we  have  ever  heard,  injured  the  morals  of  that 


VI  PREFACE. 

city,  nor  is  tbere,  in  consequence,  any  wich  to  abolish 
the  Sabbath ;  nor  are  worldly  avocations  pursued  to  any 
greater  degree  than  before ;  nor  do  those  who  leave  the 
city,  for  the  purer  air  of  the  country,  a^Dpear  to  return  in 
the  sad  condition  which  our  author  describes,  namely, 
"  battered,  bruised,  and  bloody."  The  advocates  of  re- 
striction who  thus  endeavor  to  arouse  passions  and  alarm 
prejudices  cannot  be  sincere,  or  they  would  not  by  their 
own  example  violate  the  law  as  it  now  stands  or  counte- 
nance its  violation  in  others.  Their  own  conduct  shows 
their  insincerity,  for  they  are  not  willing  to  accord,  the 
liberty  which  they  claim  for  themselves.  The  whole 
question  is  resolved  into  this :  Is  the  fourth  command- 
ment now  morally  binding  f  If  it  is,  there  is  an  end  of 
the  discussion;  and  so  far  from  the  law  of  the  State 
being  too  strict,  it  is  not  strict  enough,  and  should  be 
enforced  by  heavier  penalties.  Instead  of  leaving  at- 
tendance upon  worship  optional,  it  should  then  be  made 
compulsory.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fourth  command- 
ment is  not  obligatory,  and  of  no  Divine  authority  for 
the  binding  observance  of  Sunday,  then  it  is  as  unlawful 
to  restrict  the  public  liberty  by  preventing  the  running 
of  cars,  as  it  would  be  to  compel  the  attendance  of  every 
one  upon  a  place  of  public  worship.  For  it  is  as  wise  to 
assert  that  the  morals  will  be  infallibly  corrupted  by  the 
one,  as  to  assert  that  they  will  be  infallibly  improved  by 
the  other. 

It  is  our  choice  to  attend  a  place  of  worship  on  Sun- 
day, and  we  would  concede  the  same  liberty  of  action, 
we  claim  for  ourselves,  to  him  who  sought  the  country 
by  public  convej^ance.  Nor  are  we  willing  to  admit 
that,  when  in  church,  our  nerves  are  any  more  disturbed 


PREFACE.  Vll 

by  the  running  of  cars  over  an  iron  rail,  than  by  the  rat- 
tling of  a  carriage  over  the  public  pavement. 

The  result  of  our  inquiries,  and  for  which  no  special 
originality  is  claimed,  will  be  found  in  the  following  pages. 
The  arguments  advanced  by  the  author  of  "  Sabbatis- 
mos"  are  the  same  adduced  by  every  writer  upon  this 
subject,  and  which  from  time  to  time  have  been  promptly 
met  and  refuted,  to  be  again,  in  due  time,  proffered,  and, 
like  false  coin,  again  rejected. 

There  is  not  a  reason  urged,  nor  a  quotation  given, 
of  which  an  examination  and  verification  is  not  earnestly 
desired.  And  let  the  candid  reader  note,  that  every  re- 
ligious newspaper  that  may  condescend  to  comment 
upon  this  "  Eeply,"  will  begin  and  end  with  the  charge 
of  infidelity,  notwithstanding  that  every  position  may 
be  sustained  by  the  testimony  of  some  one  or  other  of  the 
lights  of  the  church,  whom  they  dare  not  individually 
thus  assail. 

The  writer  cannot  hope  to  escape  the  treatment  which 
all  have  undergone  who  have  been  so  bold  as  to  question 
the  truth  of  any  long-cherished  religious  opinion. 

Bigotry  cannot  trust  itself  in  the  light;  it  becomes 
dazzled  and  confused;  the  glare  of  truth  disarms  it. 
Barely,  therefore,  does  it  meet  argument  with  argu- 
ment ;  but  prefers  the  reckless  assertion,  the  disingenu- 
ous insinuation,  the  unscrupulous  charge  of  skepticism, 
feeling  assured  that  such  a  note  of  alarm  will  at  once 
arouse  the  timid,  who  seldom  reflect,  and  have,  perhaps, 
neither  the  courage  nor  the  industry  to  investigate.  If 
there  ever  was  a  tyranny,  cruel,  defiant,  exacting,  and 
unmerciful,  and  with  which  it  must  be  instant,  unques- 
tioning assent,  or  else  malignant  persecution,  it  is  that 
of  religious  intolerance.     Following  its  victim  into  pri- 


Vm  PREFACE. 

vate  as  into  public  life,  and  knowing  no  commiseration 
or  relentings,  it  would  snatch  the  very  crust  from  the 
lips  of  the  famished  child,  because  of  the  alleged  offences 
of  the  parent.  It  is  as  much  in  contrast  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Gospel,  and  with  the  holy  teachings  of  our  Saviour, 
as  hght  is  with  darkness;  as  all  that  is  good  with  all  that 
is  bad.  A  tyranny  as  fierce  now  as  in  the  dark  ages, 
and  which  is,  in  our  midst,  as  harsh,  and  unscrupulous, 
and  wicked  as  ever,  and  the  cause  of  more  doubt  and 
infidelity  than  all  the  writings  of  all  the  skeptics  who 
have  ever  lived. 


A   REPLY 


REV.  DR.   GEORGE   JUNKIN, 


CHAP  TEE   I. 

1.  The  reasons  alleged  for  the  observance  of  Sunday  noticed.  2. 
Geologj'  in  conflict  with  the  scriptural  account  of  the  creation 
so  far  as  relates  to  our  computation  of  time.  3.  Views  of  the 
Kev.  Baden  Powell.  4.  Kenrick  on  Primeval  History.  5. 
Scriptural  silence  previously  to  Moses  as  to  the  observation 
of  a  "Sabbath." 

1.  The  Doctor  asserts,  in  his  first  chapter,  that  the 
observance  of  the  "  Sabbath,''  by  which  he  means  what 
is  called  by  some  denominations  ''Sunday,"  and  by, 
perhaps,  the  majority  of  Christians,  the  "Lord's  Day," 
is  a  permanent  and  moral  obligation;  and  such  for 
three  reasons,  which  may  be  briefly  stated : 

1st.  That  the  law,  ordaining  the  Sabbath,  was  the 
first  God  ever  gave  to  man. 

2d.  That  the  Creator,  having  for  six  days  been  em- 
ployed in  the  creation  of  the  universe,  rested  upon  the 
seventh  day,  "  from  all  his  works  which  he  had  made" 
and  sanctified  that  day. 

2 


10  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

3d.  That  the  figure  seven  has  a  ''mystical  use;"  that 
it  is  the  "number  of  perfection."  That  the  seven  well- 
favored  and  the.  seven  ill-favored  kine,  the  seven  good 
and  seven  bad  ears  on  a  stock,  the  seven  days  and  seven 
priests,  bearing  seven  trumpets,  &c.,  "  plainly  show  the 
number  seven  to  be  peculiarly  distinguished  in  the 
Scriptures;"  and  that  this  number,  having  been  first 
used  with  reference  to  the  rest  of  the  Creator  from  his 
labors,  its  after  use,  in  the  cases  just  cited,  and  in  other 
instances,  "  amounts  to  more  than  a  violent  presump- 
tion;" nay,  constitutes  a  ^^ 'proof  of  the  seventh  day's 
consecration  as  a  Sabbath  from  the  beginning  !"*  As  to 
the  last  of  these  grounds,  we  remark,  without  further 
comment,  that  it  appears  to  savor  more  of  superstition 
than  of  proof;  and,  as  to  the  first,  we  reply,  conceding 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument  that  it  was  a  law,  and  as 
such  given  to  man,  that  the  antiquity  of  a  law  is  no 
proof  of  its  moral  and  perpetual  obligation. 

And  with  regard  to  the  second  reason,  of  which  more 
particularly  hereafter,  there  is  no  evidence,  in  Genesis 
or  elsewhere,  showing  the  enactment  of  any  law  bind- 
ing man  to  sanctify  the  seventh  day,  after  Creation, 
nor  of  any  patriarchal  public  or  private  w^orship.  The 
distin(?tion  given  to  the  seventh  day  occurred  before 
the  existence  of  the  necessity  of  rest  to  the  human  race 
was  even  intimated^  before  the  fatal  expulsion  from  Eden 
and  all  its  joys,  and  the  announcement  of  that  terrible 
curse,  and  of  man's  mortality,  "In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the 
ground;  for  out  of  it  wast  thou  taken:  for  dust  thou  art 
and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.''   (3  Gen.  19.) 

2.  If,  however,  the  perpetuity  of  the  alleged  patri- 
archal Sabbath  is  based  upon  the  creation  of  the  world, 

*  Page  12. 


THE   SUNDAY    QUESTION.  11 

according  to  the  division  of  time,  as  understood  by  us, 
the  whole  fabric  falls,  and  the  best  evidence  is  afforded 
against  the  supposition  of  the  enactment  of  any  law 
whatever.  There  was  a  period  when  to  interpret  this 
great  mysterj^  in  any  other  sense  than  that  insisted 
upon  in  the  book  we  are  reviewing,  would  have  been 
regarded  as  the  grossest  infidelity,  but  science,  which 
concerns  the  occupation  of  the  highest  capacities  of  the 
human  intellect,  is  as  resistless  as  are  the  very  ele- 
ments, when  wrought  upon  by  the  laws  of  Him  who 
brought  them  into  being.  Geology  has  long  since  shown 
that  the  Creation  was  the  result,  not  of  one  hundred 
and  forty-four  hours'  work,  but  of  the  silent  operation 
of,  perhaps,  millions  of  years.  Thus  does  our  author 
condemn  his  fellow  for  "  the  violation  of  a  law"  which 
never  had  existence  upon  the  interpretation  presented 
by  him ;  for  to  credit  that  it  had  would  involve  a  dis- 
belief in  that  Power  which  brought  perfection  out  of 
nothing.* 

In  confirmation  of  our  view  as  to  the  announcement 
in  Genesis  with  reference  to  the  history  of  creation,  we 
present  the  authority  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
divines  of  Great  Britain,  that  of  the  late  Eev.  Baden 
Powell,  who  says  in  his  Christianity  without  Judaism, 

*  We  must  not  be  understood  as  expressing  the  belief  that  the 
Supreme  could  not  have  created  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  our 
own  and  the  other  infinite  globes  which  swim  in  space,  had  it 
been  his  divine  pleasure  so  to  do,  but  we  assert  that  Geology  has 
proved  that  such  was  not  his  pleasure,  and  that  the  theory  of  a 
"  law  "  based  on  the  sense  which  we  attach  to  the  word  day  can- 
not be  received.  It  is  a  choice  as  to  which  is  safer,  whether  to 
infer  the  enactment  of  a  "perpetual  and  irrevocable  law  "  when 
the  Scriptures  are  silent  as  to  any  such  enactment,  or  to  believe 
that  some  other  sense  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  word  day,  and  that 
it  was  not  used  to  convey  the  idea  now  affixed,  but  to  express  a 
period  of  time. 


12  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

and  from  which  we  shall  have  occasion  frequently  to 
quote : 

3.  "  Some  have  imagined  from  the  figurative  account 
of  the  Divine  'rest'  after  the  creation  that  there  was  a 
primeval  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  though  certainly 
no  precept  is  recorded  as  having  been  given  to  man  to 
keep  it  up.  But  since,  from  the  irreconcilable  contra- 
dictions disclosed  by  geological  discovery,  the  whole 
narrative  of  the  six  days'  creation  cannot  now  be  re- 
garded by  any  competently  informed  person  as  histor- 
ical, the  historical  character  of  the  distinction  conferred 
on  the  seventh  day  falls  to  the  ground  along  with  it. 

"  The  disclosures  of  the  true  physical  history  of  the 
origin  of  the  existing  state  of  the  earth,  by  modern 
geological  research,  as  shown  in  a  previous  essay,  en- 
tirely  overthrows  the  supposed  historical  character  of  the 
narrative  of  the  six  days,  and  by  consequence  that  respecting 
the  consecration  of  the  seventh  day  along  with  it,  and  thus 
subverts  entirely  the  whole  foundation  of  the  belief  ia 
an  alleged  primeval  Sabbath,  coeval  with  the  world,  and 
with  man,  which  has  been  so  deeply  mixed  up  with  the 
preposessions  of  a  large  class  of  modern  religionists. 
Yet  without  reference  to  this  consideration,  even  long 
before  the  geological  discoveries  w^ere  known,  some  of 
the  best  commentators  have  regarded  the  passage  as 
proleptical  or  anticipatory."  {Christianity  without  Juda- 
ism. By  the  Rev.  Baden  Powell,  F.RS.,  &c.,  &c.,  p.  88. 
London,  1866.) 

We  also  give  the  views  of  Mr.  Kenrick,  as  quoted  by 
Mr.  Robert  Cox  in  his  able  and  exhaustive  ti-eatise  en- 
titled Sabbath  Laws  and  Sabbath  Duties,  p.  87,  and  to 
whose  labors  we  acknowledge  our  obligations.* 

*  To  this  gentleman  the  cause  of  the  Sunday  question  and  of 
truth  owe  a  heavy  debt.     With  a  courage  and  manliness,  which 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  13 

4.  '<Thc  credibility  of  every  historical  writing,'^  says 
Mr.  Kenrick,  in  the  preface  to  his  Essay  on  Primeval 
History,  "  must  stand  on  its  own  ground ;  and  not  only 
in  the  same  volume,  but  in  the  same  work,  materials  of 
very  different  authority  may  be  included.  The  various 
portions  of  a  national  history,  some  founded  on  docu- 
mentar}^  and  contemporaneous  evidence,  some  derived 
from  poetical  sources,  some  from  tradition,  some  treat- 
ing of  a  period  anterior  to  the  invention  of  writing, 
some  to  the  very  existence  of  a  nation,  and  even  of  the 
human  race,  cannot  possess  a  uniform  and  equal  degree 
of  certainty.  We  cannot  have  the  same  evidence  of 
the  events  of  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon  and 
those  of  the  period  comprehended  in  the  first  eleven 
chapters  of  the  Book  of  Genesis;  nor  can  we  be  sur- 
prised if,  in  the  necessary  absence  of  documents  re- 
specting primeval  times,  a  narrative  should  have 
formed  itself  reflecting  the  opinions,  partlj'  true  and 
partly  erroneous,  of  the  people  among  whom  it  had  its 
birth.  Had  the  Hebrew  literature  not  borne  this  char- 
acter, the  phenomenon  would  have  been  unparalleled 
in  history;  it  would  have  wanted  a  most  decisive  stamp 

cannot  be  too  highly  praised,  he  threw  himself  into  the  discussion, 
many  years  since,  upon  the  moral  and  scriptural  lawfulness  of 
running  Sunday  trains,  an  event  which  intensely  agitated  the 
Scottish  community.  As  this  was  at  a  time  when  religious  intol- 
erance ran  liigh,  he  necessarily  encountered  his  full  share  of  pop- 
ular odium.  Nothing  daunted,  however,  for  his  principles  were 
fixed,  he  devoted  much  time  to  research  and  produced  a  treatise  so 
thorough  as  to  leave  nothing  to  be  desired.  He  has  the  satis- 
faction of  all  those  who  labor  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  bide  their 
time,  that  of  seeing  many  who  differed  now  of  the  same  way  of 
thinking  and  standing  with  him  on  the  same  broad  and  unassail- 
able platform,  for  the  change  of  sentiment  in  Scotland  on  the 
Sunday  question,  all  things  considered,  is  remarkable. 

2* 


14  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

of  high  antiquity  had  it  exhibited  in  its  earliest  pages 

a  scientific,  not  a  popular  philosophy It  is 

the  natural  consequence  of  this  Divine  instruction  that 
their  (the  Jews)  early  traditions  should  be,  as  we  find 
them,  more  pure  and  rational  than  those  of  their  neigh- 
bors; but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  their  pri- 
meval chronology  must  be  exact,  or  their  history  every- 
where free  from  exaggeration  and  misconception. 

*'  These  opinions  may  be  startling  to  many  persons, 
by  seeming  to  derogate  from  an  authority  concerning 
which  '  sanctius  ac  reverentius  risum  credere  quam  scire.' 
Yet,  I  believe  it  will  be  found  that  neither  our  religious 
feelings  nor  our  religious  belief  are  necessarily  and  per- 
manently affected  by  the  exercise  of  a  freer  and  more 
discriminating  criticism  upon  the  Jewish  records.  Cre- 
ation will  still  appear  to  us  as  an  example  and  proof  of 
omnipotence,  though  in  the  limitation  of  its  manifold 
and  progressive  operations  to  a  period  of  six  days  we 
have  the  influence  of  the  Jewish  institution  of  the  Sab- 
bath  I  am  persuaded  that  there  are  many 

persons  of  truly  religious  mind  to  whom  it  will  be  a 
relief  from  painful  perj^lexity  and  doubt  to  find  that  the 
authority  of  revelation  is  not  involved  in  the  correct- 
ness of  the  oj^inions  which  prevailed  among  the  He- 
brew people  respecting  cosmogony  and  primeval  his- 
tory. They  delight  to  trace  the  guiding  hand  of 
Providence  in  the  separation  of  this  people  from  amidst 
the  idolatrous  nations,  in  order  to  preserve  the  worship 
of  a  spiritual  Deity,  and  in  all  the  vicissitudes  of  their 
history  till  its  consummation.  They  admire  the  wis- 
dom and  humanity  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and 
acknowledge  this  dispensation  as  the  basis  of  the 
Christian ;  they  feel  the  sublimity  and  purity  of  the 
devotional,  moral,  and  prophetic  writings  of  Scripture; 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  15 

but  they  can  neither  close  their  eyes  to  the  discoveries 
of  science  and  history,  nor  satisfy  their  understandings 
with  the  expedients  which  have  been  devised  for  recon- 
ciling them  with  the  language  of  the  Hebrew  records. 
I  know  that  this  is  the  state  of  many  minds ;  the  secret, 
unavowed,  perhaps  scarcely  self-acknowledged  convic- 
tions of  many  others  are  doubtless  in  unison  with  it. 
And  such  views  would  be  more  general,  were  it  not  for 
a  groundless  apprehension  that  there  is  no  medium  be- 
tween implicit  undiscriminating  belief  and  entire  un- 
belief. It  has  been  my  object  to  show  that  between 
these  extremes  there  is  ground  firm  and  wide  enough 
to  build  an  ample  and  enduring  structure  of  religious 
faith."* 

5.  The  silence  of  Scripture  as  to  the  sanctification  of 
the  seventh  day,  from  the  first  mention  of  it  in  Gen- 
esis until  its  second  announcement  in  the  time  of  Mo- 
ses, must  have  its  weight ;  but  our  author,  while 
strenuously  insisting  that  there  is  evidence  of  the  day 
having  been  observed  by  the  patriarchs,  and  of  its  con- 
tinued observance  during  succeeding  years,  speaks  of 
the  revival  and  restoration  of  the  Sabbath  law.  That 
cannot  be  revived  and  restored,  which  has  not  pre- 
viously fallen  into  disuse. 

In  this  connection  Dr.  Junkin  animadverts  upon  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Norman  Macleod,"("  whom,  with  much  bitter- 

*  An  Essay  on  Primeval  History.  By  John  Kenrick,  M.A. 
London,  1846.     Pp.  xviii-xxii. 

f  We  find  the  following  explanation  of  Dr.  Macleod's  course 
in  an  able  article  on  "  Sundaj^,"  by  the  Eev.  E.  H.  Plumtre,  A.M., 
in  the  January  number,  for  1866,  of  the  "  Contemporary  Re- 
view," London. 

"  The  North  British  Railway  Company  having  come  into  pos- 
session of  the  line  between  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow,  signalized 


16  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

ness,  he  styles  the  "  Ghisgow  Colenso,"  and  accuses  of 
open  infidelity,  because,- among  other  reasons,  that  gen- 
its  new  proprietorship  by  running  Sunday  trains  where  none  had 
run  before.  The  clergy  and  many  of  the  laity  of  Glasgow  were 
alarmed  at  what  seemed  to  them  to  threaten  a  revolutionary 
change  in  the  national  observance.  A  meeting  of  the  Presbytery 
of  the  Established  Church  was  convened,  and  it  was  agreed  to 
issue  a  pastoral  address  on  the  subject.  The  language  of  the  ad- 
dress was  temperate  ;  that  of  the  speakers  far  from  violent.  Their 
case  was  rested,  however,  on  the  assumption  that  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment was  at  once  the  ground  and  the  rule  of  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  day,  and  an  amendment,  with  a  view  to  the  omission 
of  the  clause  affirming  this,  was  moved  by  Dr.  Norman  Maclcod, 
of  the  Barony  Church,  Glasgow,  the  well-known  editor  of  Good 
Worlds.  At  an  adjourned  meeting,  on  November  16th,  he  sup- 
ported the  amendment  in  a  speech,  which  took  three  hours  in 
delivery,  and  which  has  since  been  published. 

It  is  pleasant  to  be  able  to  acknowledge,  as  Dr.  Macleod  him- 
self has  done,  the  Christian  courtesy,  candor,  and  gentlemanly 
bearing,  which  characterized  the  discussion  of  the  Presbytery. 
There  was  little  or  nothing  of  the  bitterness,  which  has  so  often 
disgraced  controversies  on  this  subject;  a  total  absence  of  the  ex- 
travagance which  led  the  Presbytery  of  Strath  bogie,  in  1658,  to 
condemn  an  offender,  accused  of  Sabbath-breaking,  for  saving  the 
life  of  a  sheep  ;  and  which,  in  1863,  prompted  the  Free  Church 
Presbytery  of  the  same  district  (as  though  their  teeth  were  still  set 
on  edge  with  the  sour  grapes  which  their  fathers  had  eaten),  to 
present  Good  Words  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Free  Church, 
because  it  had  admitted  a  paper  "by  Mr.  Thorold,  the  excellent 
Rector  of  St.  Giles',  London,  advocating,  among  other  things, 
the  practice  of  allowing  boys  at  school  to  write  letters  to  their 
parents,  on  the  leisure  hours  of  Sunday.  The  speeches  of  Dr. 
Macduff,  Mr. -Charteris,  and  others,  we  may  add,  also,  the  paper 
on  this  subject,  by  Dr.  Hanna  (the  son-in-law  and  biographer  of 
Thomas  Chalmers),  in  the  Sunday  Magazine  for  December  last, 
present  a  refreshing  contrast  to  this  unintelligent  narrowness. 
Concessions  were  made  which  would  have  startled  those  who,  in 
the  General  Assembly  of  1834,  declared  a  Sunday  walk  ('  wan- 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  17 

tleman  can  find  no  evidence  of  the  keeping  of  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  from  the  time  of  Adam  to  that 
of  Mosea.  The  offence  of  Dr.  Macleod,  one  of  the  bright- 
est intellects  and  best  men  in  Scotland,  is  explained 
in  the  subjoined  note.  "Nothing,"  says  the  Eev.  Mr. 
Pluratre,  in  speaking  of  Dr.  Macleod's  views,  "  is 
easier  for  those  who  simply  want  a  'cry  to  go  to  the 
country  with,^  than  to  repeat  incessantly  that  Dr. 
Macleod   sets   aside  the   authority  of  the    Ten   Com- 

dering  in  the  fields,'  grouped  together  with  'riot,  drunkenness, 
and  other  immoralities'),  to  be  a  breach  of  the  commandment. 
Dr.  Macduff  spoke  with  approval  of  the  opening  of  the  parks  of 
Glasgow,  'when  the  Sabbath  services  are  over.'  It  was  allowed 
by  Mr.  Charteris  that  some  cabs  and  omnibuses  might  legitimate- 
ly ply  on  the  Lord's  day  ;  that  one  morning  and  one  evening 
train  might,  if  there  were  fair  evidence  of  their  being  wanted, 
legitimately  run.  In  practical  suggestions  for  the  observance  of 
the  day  Dr.  Macleod  and  his  opponents  were,  for  the  most  part, 
of  one  mind.  What  startled  and  alarmed  them,  was  that  he 
threw  overboard  the  principle  on  which  they  laid  stress, — that 
the  Lord's  daj^  rests  upon  the  Fourth  Commandment ;  that  he  went 
on,  with  a  Luther-like  boldness,  to  declare  that  the  Decalogue 
itself,  qua  Decalogue,  was  no  longer  binding  on  those  who  accept- 
ed the  law  of  their  Master,  Christ;  that  the  moral  elements  of 
it  are  of  perpetual  force,  not  because  they  are  there^  but  because 
they  are  moral,  part  of  the  eternal  will  of  God,  incorporated  with 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord.  To  them  the  former  position  seemed 
to  undermine  the  onlj'^  ground  on  which  the  holiness  of  the  Lord's 
day  could  be  maintained;  the  latter  to  let  in  an  unbridled  Anti- 
nomianism.  It  is  to  their  honor,  that  in  spite  of  their  fears,  they 
continued  to  use  the  language  of  courtesj^  and  calmness.  The  ve- 
hemence of  popular  religious  feeling,  however,  has  gone  far  beyond 
the  moderation  of  the  Presbytery,  and  Dr.  Macleod  is  probably,  at 
present,  the  best  abused  man  in  Great  Britain.  Journal  after 
journal  declaims  against  him,  as  English  religious  newspapers 
have  declaimed  (with  more  reason,  it  must  be  owned),  against  the 
Bishop  of  Natal,  and  the  writers  of  'Essays  and  Reviews.'  " 


18  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

mandments.  Those  who  do  not  shrink  from  low  jest- 
ing on  the  gravest  questions,  will  add  to  that  cry  that, 
if  his  teaching  gains  ground,  they  must  lock  up  their 
spoons,  &c.  Men  who  wish  to  deal  with  facts,  as  they 
are,  will  recognize  that  what  he  maintains  is  simply 
this,  that  every  commandment  but  the  fourth  was 
binding  before  the  law  was  given  on  Sinai,  would  have 
been  binding  now,  even  if  that  law  had  never  been 
given,  and  is  actually  binding  on  the  consciences  of 
Christian  men,  not  because  it  was  then  written  on 
tables  of  stone,  but  because  it  was  written  on  the 
'fleshy  tables  of  the  heart,'  and  has  been  confirmed 
and  expanded  by  the  teaching  of  our  Saviour  Christ. 
To  represent  the  moral  laws  of  God  as  depending  on 
the  thunders  of  Sinai  for  their  validity,  and  all  laws  so 
given  as  equally  binding,  must  lead  either  to  Judaism, 
if  we  believe  the  Sabbatic  law,  as  such,  to  continue,  or 
to  Antinomianism,  if  we  believe  it,  as  such,  to  have 
passed  away." 

It  appears  that  the  position  of  Dr.  Macleod,  for 
maintaining  which  with  such  courage  and  honest  frank- 
ness, he  is  so  violently  and  uncharitably  assailed  as  an 
infidel,  is  impregnable.  The  laws  of  the  Decalogue, 
other  than  that  of  the  Fourth  Commandment,  are  not 
binding  because  they  are  there,  but  because  their  founda- 
tion is  laid  in  the  everlasting  principles  of  right,  were 
binding  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  will  be  until 
the  end  of  time,  together  with  the  other  precepts  and 
prohibitions,  which,  though  not  mentioned  with  the 
nine,  yet  stand  in  as  indissoluble  relation  to  man  and 
his  duty  to  his  God  and  his  fellows,  as  do  any  of  the 
nine  delivered  at  the  Mount. 

It  is  therefore  maintained  by  the  author  of  "  Sabba- 
tismos'^  that  the  Sabbath  was  patriarchal,  and  as  such  is 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  19 

morally  binding  through  all  time.  If  it  be  conceded 
that  the  Sabbath,  as  a  day  of  worship^  was  instituted  in 
the  age  of  the  patriarchs,  there  is  no  proof  that  because 
of  this  it  is  morally  binding  upon  mankind  throughout 
all  time.  If,  as  is  alleged,  the  light  of  nature  makes 
known  to  mankind  not  the  duty  of  worshipping  at  all 
times,  but  that  of  consecrating  the  seventh  as  the  least 
portion  of  time  that  could  be  properly  set  apart  for  the 
worship  of  God,  how  is  it  that  the  light  of  nature  did 
not  impart  this  to  Socrates  and  to  other  good  men 
among  the  ancients,  and  to  Luther,  Milton  or  Chilling- 
worth,  and  other  good  men  among  the  moderns  whose 
moral  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  judging  from  the  pu- 
rity of  their  lives,  should  have  taught  them  as  readily 
as  others  that  the  seventh  day  was  the  least  division 
that  should  be  devoted  to  the  worship  of  the  Deity  ? 
(Cox,  p.  219.) 

The  pious  and  conscientious  Dr.  Owen  regards  the 
doctrine,  which  so  much  as  to  doubt  our  author  pro- 
nounces rank  infidelity  and  worthy  of  a  Colenso,  as  one 
l^resenting  but  a  "  high  degree  of  probability.''  He 
observes  : 

"  And,  as  is  said  of  Abraham,  that  he  taught  his 
household  and  children  after  him  to  keep  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  and  to  do  justice  and  judgment  (Gen.  xviii, 
19).  If,  then,  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  be  a  stat- 
ute and  ordinance  and  was  made  known  to  Abraham, 
it  is  certain  that  he  instructed  his  household  and 
children,  all  his  posterity,  in  their  duty  with  respect 
thereunto.  And  if  so,  it  could  not  be  revealed  unto 
them  at  Marah.  Others,  therefore,  of  the  (Jewish) 
Masters  do  grant,  as  we  observed,  also  the  original  of 
the  Sabbath  from  the  Creation,  and  do  assert  the  j^atri- 
archal   observance    of  it  upon   that  foundation.     The 


20  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

instances  I  confess  which  they  make  use  of  are  not 
absolutely  cogent,  but  yet,  considered  with  other  cir- 
cumstances wherewith  they  are  strengthened,  they  may 
be  allowed  to  conclude  unto  a  high  probability."  {Expo- 
sition of  Hebrews.  By  John  Owen,  D.D.,  i,  630.  Lond., 
1840.) 

The  eminent  theologians  who  hold  the  reverse  of 
what  our  author  so  dogmatically  insists  upon  as  beyond 
the  reach  of  contradiction,  and  who  could  not  see 
even  the  "  high  probability  "  of  Dr.  Owen,  are  numer- 
ous, and  their  views  will  be  quoted  in  the  course  of  this 
"  Eeply/'  The  language  of  the  learned  and  distinguish- 
ed Dr.  Isaac  Barrow  is  so  comprehensive  and  to  the 
point  that  we  here  cite  what  he  says  upon  the  subject: 

"As  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham  and  his  posterity,  so  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath did  obsignate  the  covenant  made  with  the  children 
of  Israel  after  their  delivery  out  of  Egypt."  .... 

After  referring  to  Exod.  xxvi,  16;  Ezek.  xx,  11,  12, 
20  ;  Neh.  ix,  13,  14  ;  Exod.  xvi,  29,  Barrow  says  : 

"  Where  making  known  to  them  the  Sabbaths,  as  also 
otherwhere  giving  them  the  Sabbath,  are  expressions 
(together  with  the  special  ends  of  the  Sabbath's  ap- 
pointment, which  are  mentioned  in  those  places),  con- 
firming the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Christians,  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenaeus,  TertuUian,  &c.,  who  refer  t\\Q  first  in- 
stitution of  the  Sabbath  to  Moses,  affirming  (that  which 
indeed  the  history  by  its  total  silence  concerning  the 
Sabbath  before  him  sufficiently  doth  seem  to  confirm) 
that  the  patriarchs  were  not  obliged  thereto  nor  did 
practise  it."  (^Exposition  of  the  Decalogue.  Barrow's 
Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  570.     Edinburgh,  1839.) 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  21 


CHAPTER   II. 

1.  Proof  that  the  Fourth  Commandment,  or  "Jewish  Sabbath," 
is  not  morally  binding.  2.  Absence  of  any  scriptural  distinc- 
tion between  the  "Sabbath"  and  the  "seventh  day." 

1.  The  Doctor  asserts  that  the  Decalogue  has  been 
held,  since  the  period  of  its  promulgation,  "  by  all  who 
knew  it,  a  brief  compend  of  the  moral  law"  (p.  39). 
And  while  admitting  it  was  given  to  the  Jews,  insists 
that  it  is  equally  binding  now,  as  when  first  delivered; 
that  the  commandments  "are  a  transcript  of  the  moral 
attributes  of  God  (p.  32),  and  as  unchangeable  as  his 
own  eternal  nature."  That  nothing  short  of  this  can  be 
inferred  from  the  material  and  the  writing;  that  the 
Sabbath,  not  the  sanctification  of  the  seventh  day,  is  as 
old  as  the  creation;  that  of  the  Ten,  the  Fourth  is  the 
central  one.  He  acknowledges,  after  making  all  these 
statements,  that  the  Sabbath  was  not  the  "  discovery 
of  reason ;  but  when  proposed  to  reason,  secured  its 
conviction  to  this  amount, — that  it  is  a  law  of  God, 
the  Creator,  given  for  man's  benefit."  (p,  39).  The  con- 
tradictions involved  in  these  assertions  must  be  appar- 
ent to  the  most  casual  observer,  for  it  must  be  presumed 
that,  in  using  the  words,  "  moral  laAV,"  &c.,  he  intended 
to  employ  them  in  the  accepted  sense.  The  fallacy  of 
his  position,  and  the  exposure  of  which  solves  the  whole 
difficulty,  lies  in  confounding  the  natural  impulse  of 
man  (be  he  savage  or  civilized,  to  worship  an  overrul- 
ing or  supreme  Existence,  or  that  which  he  deems  such, 

3 


22  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

whether  it  be  the  sun  or  an  idol  of  his  own  creation, 
or  the  Great  Spirit),  with  the  worship  of  the  Christian, 
recurring  at  stated  intervals,  and  for  a  reason  which 
must  appear  arbitrary:  for  it  would  have  seemed  as 
reasonable  had  the  tenth  or  twentieth  da}^  been  selected 
as  a  season  of  rest,  as  that  the  seventh  should  have 
been.  The  worship  of  God,  therefore,  or  to  the  unen- 
lightened of  some  God,  or  superior  Eeing,  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  moral  imj^ulse  of  the  human  breast;  but 
the  worship  of  God  upon  every  returning  seventh  day 
is  a  commandment  of  si,  positive  nature,  and,  therefore, 
cannot  be  moral. 

"  The  moral  law  revealed  itself  in  the  infancy  of  so- 
ciet}^;  philosophers  are  its  expounders,  not  its  creators; 
their  voice  is  but  the  echo  of  conscience."  Encyc.  Amer., 
Tit.  Moral  Philosophy.  Yet  we  are  told,  by  the  Doctor, 
that  the  command  to  hallow  one  day  in  seven,  was  of 
itself  sufficient  to  prove  the  precept  moral;  that  is,  the 
"  echo  of  conscience,"  yet  a  precept  not  ''  discoverable 
by  our  reason!" 

The  fact  that  there  is  a  consciousness  of  wrong  in 
stealing  or  in  bearing  false  witness,  proves  the  existence 
of  a  sense  of  the  breach  of  a  perpetually  binding  and 
moral  law.  Whereas  it  would  be  the  height  of  the  ab- 
surd to  allege  that  there  would  be  any  such  conscious- 
ness, were  we,  from  preference  or  the  force  of  circum- 
stances, to  keep  every  tenth  rather  than  every  seventh 
day,  or  every  Friday  rather  than  every  Sunday.  The 
very  statement  shows  the  distinction  between  the  viola- 
tion of  a  moral  law  and  a  positive  statute.  The  moral 
law  is  eternal ;  the  statute  which  was  once  law,  has  now 
ceased  to  exist. 

It  is  naturally  good  to  obey  our  parents,  and  to  ab- 
stain from  murder  or  adultery.    It  is  naturally  good  to 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  23 

worship  our  Maker.  But  the  ^' very  light  of  reason  and 
principle  of  nature"  teaches  us  to  avoid  the  disohedience 
to  parents,  or  the  commission  of  murder  or  adulter}^, 
always,  and  to  worship  our  Maker  and  hold  him  in 
reverence  alwa^'s.  It  does  not,  however,  on  the  one 
hand,  teach  us  that  we  may  intermit  the  duty,  or  wor- 
ship or  perform  it  at  some  arbitrary  interval  of  time, 
and  on  the  other  render  a  commission  of  the  offences 
named  either  more  or  less  unlawful  at  one  time  than 
at  another. 

This  view  of  the  question  is  well  put  by  the  Eev. 
Baden  Powell,  who  remarks  :  "The  tendencies  to  Juda- 
ism, arising  from  mistaken  views  of  Scripture,  and  a 
want  of  due  recognition  of  Christianity  in  its  primitive 
simplicit}^  and  purit}^,  as  disclosed  in  the  apostolic  writ- 
ings, are  powerfully'  seconded  and  upheld  by  the  tenden- 
cies of  human  nature;  and  though  there  is  no  foundation 
for  sabbatisni  in  morality  or  Christianity,  there  is  a 
deep-seated  foundation  for  it  in  the  formalism  and  su- 
perstition so  congenial  to  the  human  heart. 

"  Of  all  corrupt  notions,  that  of  relegating  religious 
duties  to  certain  fixed  periods  or  days  is  one  of  the 
most  grateful  to  human  nature,  but  most  radically  hos- 
tile to  Christian  principles,  though  often  defended  on 
the  plea,  that  what  is  left  to  be  done  at  any  time  will 
never  be  done;  whereas  the  true  argument  is,  that  it  is 
to  be  done  at  all  times. 

"  Those  who  are  not  religious  habitually^  will  seek  to 
be  so  occasionally ;  those  who  do  not  keep  up  continual 
holiness,  will  seek  j)eriodical  sanctitj^.     Those  who  do  \ 
not  make  their  lives  ho\j,  can  punctiliously  keep  days] 
holy.    It  is  easier  to  sanctify  times  and  places  than  our 
hearts;  human  nature  clings  to  religious  formalism,  and 


24  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

especially  of  sabbatism,  as  an  easy  mode  of  compound- 
ing for  a  worldly,  if  not  irreligious  life/' 

Again : 

"The  distinction  adopted  by  many  modern  divines 
between  the  '  ceremonial '  and  the  '  moral '  law  appears 
nowhere  in  the  books  of  Moses.  No  one  portion  or 
code  is  there  held  out  as  comprising  the  rules  of  moral 
obligation  distinct  and  apart  from  those  of  a  positive 
nature.  In  the  low  stage  of  the  advancement  of  the 
Israelites  such  a  distinction  would  have  been  unintel- 
ligible to  them ;  and  '  the  Law '  is  always  spoken  of, 
both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New,  as  a  whole, 
without  reference  to  any  such  classification ;  and  the 
obligations  of  all  parts  of  it  are  indiscriminately  urged 
on  the  same  grounds,  and  as  of  the  same  kind. 

"  In  particular,  what  is  termed  the  moral  law  is  cer- 
tainly in  no  way  peculiarly  to  be  identified  with  the 
Decalogue,  as  some  have  strangely  imagined.  Though 
moral  duties  are  sjDCcially  enjoined  in  many  places  of 
the  Law,  yet  the  Decalogue  most  assuredly  does  not 
contain  all  moral  duties,  even  by  remote  implication, 
and  on  the  widest  construction.  It  totally  omits  many 
such,  as  e.  g.,  beneficence,  truth,  justice,  temperance, 
control  of  temper,  and  others;  and  some  moral  pre- 
cepts omitted  here  are  introduced  in  other  places.  But 
many  moral  duties  are  hardly  recognized;  e.  g.,  it  is 
difficult  to  find  any  positive  prohibition  of  drunkenness 
in  the  Law.  In  one  passage  only  an  indirect  censure 
seems  to  be  implied  (Deut.  xxix,  19).  The  prohibition 
in  respect  to  the  priests  (Lev.  x,  9),  and  the  Nazarite 
vow,  were  peculiar  cases  (Deut.  vi,  3)."  (Powell's  Chris- 
tianity without  Judaism,  pp.  187,  188,  104.) 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  25 

Dv.  South  Bays : 

.  .  .  .  "  I  conceive  that  the  matter  of  all  the  com- 
mandments (the  fourth  only,  as  it  determines  the  time 
of  God's  solemn  worship  to  the  seventh  day,  excepted)^ 
is  of  natural  moral  right,  and  carries  with  it  a  neces- 
sary and  eternal  obligation."  {Sermo?is  by  Robert  /South, 
D.I).,  i,  224.    London,  1859.) 

Mr.  Cox  has  the  following  quotations  which  properly 
belong  to  this  division  of  our  subject : 

''  If  the  duties  prescribed  in  the  fourth  command- 
ment rest  upon  a  law  written  on  the  heart  and  grafted 
on  the  constitution  of  man,  how  Avas  it  possible  for  the 
acute  and  learned  Baxter  to  declare  that  they  are  '  but 
a  positive  institution  and  not  naturally  known  to  man,' 
as  other  duties  are?"  (Works,  vol.  ix,  p.  186.)*  How 
can  Dr.  McCrie  affirm  that  "  it  is  onlj^  from  the  law  of 
revelation  that  we  learn  sabbatical  duty?"  (Memoirs  of 
Sir  A.  Agnew,  p.  152.)  And  how  could  the  accomplished 
Dr.  Barrow  conclude  that,  seeing  in  its  own  nature  the 
Fourth  Commandment  different  from  the  rest  of  the 
Ten  Laws,  the  obligation  thereto  being  not,  discernibly 
to  natural  light,  grounded  in  the  reason  of  the  thing, 
"  we  can  nowise  be  assured  that  a  universal  and  pcr- 

*  Baxter  has  also  these  remarks.  It  is  of  the  law  of  nature 
(that  is,  known  by  natural  light  without  other  revelation),  1. 
That  God  should  be  worshipped  ;  2.  That  societies  should  assemble 
to  do  it  together  ;  3.  That  some  set  time  should  be  separated  sta- 
tedly to  that  use  ;  4.  That  it  should  be  done  with  the  whole  heart, 
without  worldly  diversions  or  distractions.  But  I  know  nothing 
in  nature  alone  from  whence  a  man  can  prove  that.  1.  It  must 
be  either  just  one  dny  in  seven  ;  2.  Or,  just  what  day  of  the  seven 
it  must  be  ;  3.  Nor  just  what  degree  of  rest  is  necessary  :  though 
reason  may  discern  that  one  day  in  seven  is  a  very  convenie^it  pro- 
portion.   (  Woi'ks,  vol.  xix,  p.  187.    Quoted  in  Cox,  p   217.) 

3* 


26  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

petual  obligation  thereto  was  intended,  or  that  its  obli- 
gation did  extend  further  than  to  the  Jews,  to  whom 
it  was  a  formal  law  delivered,  and  upon  special  consid- 
erations severely  inculcated ;  to  whose  humor,  con- 
dition and  circumstances  it  might  also,  perhaps,  be  par- 
ticularly suited  ?"  {Exposition  of  the  Decalogue,  Works, 
ed.  1847,  vol.  ii,  p.  572.)  According  to  Eishop  Jeremy 
Taylor,  the  rest  which  the  Jews  were  commanded  to 
observe  on  the  Sabbath,  "  being  only  commemorative 
of  their  deliverance  from  the  Egyptian  servitude,  was 
not  moral  nor  perpetual;  it  could  be  dispensed  with  at 
the  command  of  a  prophet;  it  was  dispensed  with  at 
the  command  of  Joshua, — it  was  broken  at  the  siege 
of  Jericho, — it  always  yielded  when  it  clashed  with  the 
duty  of  any  other  commandment;  it  was  not  observed 
by  the  priests  in  the  Temple,  nor  in  the  stalls  by  the 
herdsmen,  nor  in  the  house  by  the  '  major-domo  ;'  but 
they  did  lead  the  ox  to  water,  and  circumcised  a  son ; 
that  is,  it  yielded  to  charity  and  to  religion,  not  only  to 
a  moral  duty  hut  to  a  ceremonial,  and  therefore  could  not 
oblige  us.  But  that  which  remained  was  imitable;  the 
natural  religion  which  was  used  upon  the  Jewish  festi- 
vals was  fit  also  for  the  holidays  of  Christians."  (Dwc- 
tor  Duhitantium,  B.  ii,  ch.  2,  rule  C,  §  58 ;  Works,  vol. 
xii,  p.  425.) 

Even  in  so  orthodox  a  journal  as  the  Presbyterian 
Review  (vol.  i,  p.  503,  Jan.  1832),  the  following  broad 
admission  is  made,  the  writer  afterwards  adding  truly, 
that  a  ceremonial  law  may,  however,  be  of  perpetual 
and  universal  obligation.  The  question  is  simply 
whether  God  has  made  it  such?  "And  here,"  says 
the  Review,  "we  readily  admit  that  the  Sabbath  is  a 
ceremonial  institution,  and  that  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment cannot  be  strictly  termed  a  moral  law.     It 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  27 

forms  no  part  of  the  law  written  on  the  heart,  and  has 
no  natural  and  inherent  obligation  upon  the  conscience. 
This  would  never  have  been  disputed  had  it  not  been  for 
its  position  among  the  Ten  Commandments,  which  are 
essentially  moral.  But  that  which  is  in  its  own  nature 
positive  and  ceremonial,  can  never  become  otherwise 
by  any  solemnity  of  announcement,  or  by  any  associa- 
tion with  what  is  moral.  The  reluctance  of  good  men 
to  admit  so  plain  a  point  is  easily  accounted  for,  and 
has  led  Owen  and  others  to  attempt  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  two  opinions,  affirming  that  it  is  both  moral 
and  ceremonial;  moral,  because  it  is  a  dut^^  to  give 
some  portion  of  our  time  to  God,  and  ceremonial,  as  to 
the  seventh  portion.  The  same,  however,  might  be 
said  of  the  Levitical  law  regarding  tithes,  since  it  is  a 
moral  duty  that  those  who  serve  at  the  altar  should, 
live  by  the  altar.  The  whole  Jewish  ritual  is,  in  this 
respect,  moral ;  for  that  God  is  to  be  worshipped  in 
some  way  is  a  moral  duty,  and  that  he  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment,  is  an 
equally  clear  moral  principle  ;  yet  what  is  ceremonial, 
if  the  Jewish  ritual  be  not  ?  The  spirit  of  the  Fourth 
Commandment  is  not  the  acknowledgment  of  God's 
right  to  some  portion  of  our  time,  for  this  is  acknowl- 
edged in  every  act  of  worship  ;  but  it  is  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  His  right  to  the  seventh  portion  of  it, — 
an  arrangement  in  which  there  is  nothing  moral, — a 
fifth  or  a  tenth  portion  of  our  time  being,  for  aught  we 
know  beforehand,  as  acceptable  to  God.  To  prove  the 
ceremonial  and  positive  nature  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, it  is  only  necessary  to  adduce  our  Saviour's 
declaration,  '  that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not 
man  for  the  Sabbath.'  This  could  never  have  been  said 
of  any  of  the  other  Ten  [nine  ?]  Commandments.    They 


28  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

were  not  made  for  man,  but  man  was  made  for  them, 
that  thereby  he  might  glorify  God;  and  heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away,  nay,  Grod  himself  be  changed, 
ere  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  moral  law  can  be  departed 
from."  (See  Sabbath  Laws  and  Sabbath  Duties^  by 
Eobert  Cox,  p.  217  and  note  at  p.  490.  Edinburgh,  1852.) 
The  Doctor  maintains  that  "  the  preamble  to  a  reso- 
lution, a  law,  a  constitution,  is  the  index  to  its  inter- 
pretation,— it  gives  the  reason  beforehand,  and  that 
the  same  is  true  when  the  reason  is  given  anywhere" 
[p.  67],  that  the  commandment  is  moral  and  j)er- 
petually  binding,  and  "  that  it  were  perfectly  easy  to 
throw  it  into  the  form  of  a  preamble,"  thus,  "Whereas, 
in  six  days  the  Lord,  &c.,  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed 
the  rest-da}^"  i.  e.  the  seventh.  Let  us,  therefore,  in 
answer  to  this  alleged  general  application,  and  to  show 
that  the  commandment  was  designed  only  for  the  Jews, 
use  the  form  set  forth  in  Deut.  v.  15,  which  is  al- 
ready to  our  hand  in  the  form  the  Doctor  approves, 
that  of  a  preamble.  Whereas,  in  remembrance,  "  That 
thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt  and  that  the 
Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  (i.  e.  the  Israelites),  out 
thence,  through  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched-out 
arm,  therefore,  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep 
the  Sabbath-day."  It  follows,  from  the  Doctor's  own 
showing,  and  as  the  result  of  the  preambular  method, 
that  in  the  form  the  Fourth  Commandment  is  set  forth 
in  Deuteronomy,  it  fatally  makes  against  his  hypothe- 
sis, and  from  his  own  mode  of  reasoning,  annihilates 
his  position  at  p.  67,  "  That  the  Fourth  Commandment 
is  a  moral  law,  and  not  in  any  sense  restricted  to  the 
Jewish  people,  is  manifest  from  the  reason  embodied 
within  it.  The  preamble  to  a  resolution  is  the  index 
to  its  interpretation  !" 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  29 

2.  The  Doctor  insists,  and  we  cannot  perceive  the 
cause  of  his  solicitude  upon  this  head,  nor  even  the  dis- 
tinction which  he  endeavors  to  enforce,  that  it  was  the 
Sabbath,  and  not  the  seventh  da}^,  which  the  Lord 
blessed  and  made  holy,  and  that  the  phrase  "seventh 
day  "  is  not  used  in  the  Bible  as  the  name  of  the  day 
of  holy  rest. 

This  commandment  shows  that  it  was  intended  that 
the  Sabbath  should  be  devoted  to  rest,  because  it  was 
the  seventh  day.  "  Six  days  shalt  thou,"  &c.,  "  but 
the  seventh  is  the  Sabbath,"  &c.,  showing  that  the 
"  seventh  "  and  "  Sabbath  "  are  convertible  terms. 

The  effect  of  the  dilemma,  by  his  endeavor  to  draw 
a  distinction  where  none  exists,  will  be  perceived  when 
he  insists  that  the  commandment  is  purel}^  moral,  and 
therefore  binding  through  all  time,  upon  all  mankind, 
and  equally  upon  the  Jew  as  upon  the  Gentile,  because 
it  related  to  the  seventh  day.  "  In  six  days  the  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth,  and  rested  the  seventh  daj^, 
wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,"  that  is 
because  it  was  the  seventh  da}",  "  and  hallowed  it." 
Incredible,  therefore,  as  it  may  appear,  it  is  not  the  less 
true,  that  in  this  enlightened  age,  the  main  reason 
w^hich  he  again  gives  why  the  Fourth  Commandment 
is  a  moral  law,  and  not  in  any  sense  restricted  to  the 
Jewish  people,  is  because  the  earth  was  made  in  six 
days,  entirely  ignoring,  in  this  connection,  the  explana- 
tion given  in  another  portion  of  the  Old  Testament 
why  the  seventh  day  was  set  apart  as  a  day  of  rest, 
namely,  to  commemorate  the  deliver}^  of  the  Jews 
from  their  bondage  in  the  land  of  Egypt  (Deut.  v.  14, 
15),  showing  the  ordinance  was  of  entirely  Jewish  ap- 
plication ;  and  although  in  this  portion  of  his  book,  he 
claims  the   general   application   of  the    Fourth  Com- 


30  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

mandment,  he  subsequently  admits  its  enactment  "  was 
a  sign  between  God  and  the  children  of  Israel  forever," 
(page  90),  thereby  showing  its  special  application  only. 

"  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath,"  says  Powell,  "  is 
always  expressed  and  regarded  not  as  of  one  day  in 
seven,  but  specificallj^  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  as 
such,  in  commemoration  of  the  rest  after  the  creation, 
though,  in  one  respect,  also,  it  is  afterwards  urged  as 
reminding  the  Israelites  of  their  deliverance  out  of 
Egypt."  (Deut.  v.  15.) 

"  These  distinctive  institutions  and  peculiarities  con- 
stituted at  once  their  securitj^  and  unity  as  a  people, 
and  supplied  their  motives  of  obedience.  The  law, 
throughout,  is  a  series  of  adaptations  to  them,  and  their 
national  character  and  position;  ^^et  by  many  theo- 
logians it  is,  YQvy  strangely  and  unaccountabl}^,  spoken 
of  as  something  general,  as  '  a  preliminary  education 
of  the  human  race,'  as  a  part  of  the  general  system  of 
instruction  and  advance  of  mankind.  But  the  plain 
history  discloses  nothing  but  the  separation  of  one 
single  people  for  a  specific  purpose." — Christianity  with- 
out Judaism,  102. 


THE   SUNDAY    QUESTION.  ,      31 


CHAPTEE   III. 

That  the  Fourth  Commandment,  if  binding,  is  so  in  all  its 
strictness. 

If  the  fourth  commandment  is  binding  as  a  moral 
law,  and  which  to  prove  Doctor  Junkin  has  devoted 
great  labor,  it  is  binding  in  all  its  strictness  or  it  is  not 
binding  at  all.  But  we  are  met  by  the  terrible  words, 
"  Thou  shalt  nof,"  without  the  least  hint  of  any  allevia- 
tion in  their  rigor. 

With  what  consistency,  therefore,  can  one  so  fond, 
as  is  the  Doctor,  of  allusion  to  legal  enactments,  whose 
book,  page  after  page,  is  darkened  with  texts  setting 
forth  the  awful  penalties  against  the  people  of  Israel — 
who  describes  the  solemnities  under  which  the  law  (of 
which  he  says  the  fourth  commandment  is  central) 
was  proclaimed  amidst  "thunders  and  lightnings," 
"fire  and  smoke,"  "the  grandest  and  most  sublime 
scene  our  earth  ever  witnessed"  (p.  29) — with  what 
consistency  can  he  afterwards  assert  that  so  positive  a 
statute,  given  without  qualification  or  proviso,  may  yet 
be  explained,  qualified,  and  softened;  be  subject  to 
gloss,  and  modified  to  suit  a  state  of  afi'airs  evidently 
not  contemplated  when  it  was  given,  but  which  might 
arise  ages  after  its  promulgation. 

He  is,  therefore,  here  estopped  and  remitted  to  his 
first  and  favorite  ground  of  argument,  that  the  fourth 
commandment  is  a  moral  law.  But  can  a  moral  law  be 
the  subject  of  changes  ?     A  moral  law  is  as  immutable 


32  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

as  are  the  eternal  principles  of  right.  That  which  was 
moral  in  the  time  of  Moses  is  moral  now;  so  that  the 
Doctor  himself,  and  all  of  us,  are  upon  every  Sunday  in 
the  practice  of  violating  the  fourth  commandment,  in 
the  sense  in  which  Moses  understood  it.  A  law  which 
permits  of  modification,  and  makes  that  right  now 
which  would  have  been  wrong  in  the  eye  of  Moses, 
cannot  be  a  moral  law.  How,  consequently,  are  we  to 
understand  the  Doctor,  when  in  one  place  he  asserts 
that  the  fourth  commandment  has  been  the  subject  of 
modification  and  change,  and  in  another  that  it  is  "a 
transcript  of  the  moral  attributes  of  God,  and  as  un- 
changeable as  his  own  eternal  nature"  (p.  32),  and  that 
nothing  short  of  this  can  be  inferred  from  the  ^'material 
and  the  writing"  of  the  tables. 

The  admission  by  the  author  of  Sabbatismos,  that  by 
consent  the  observance  of  Sunday  may  be  transferred 
to  any  other  day,  is  fatal  to  his  argument. 

The  author  of  Sabbatismos  has,  in  one  unfortunate 
sentence,  relinquished  all  for  which  in  one  hundred  and 
seventeen  pages  of  his  book  he  has  been  strenuously 
contending.  "We  admit,"  he  says,  "that  any  other 
day"  than  Sunda}^ — "Tuesday,  Thursday,  if  agreed 
upon  over  the  whole  country  and  the  world,  would  an- 
swer as  well"  (p.  118).  What  he  means  by  the  "whole 
country  and  the  world"  he  does  not  tell  us.  Whether 
he  would  demand  the  unanimous  consent  of  each  Pres- 
byterian professing  Christian,  or  that  of  each  of  all  de- 
nominations. Whether  he  would  include  every  being 
capable  of  a  decision,  whether  professing  Christianity 
or  not.  Whether  he  means  a  unanimous  assent  of  the 
entire  Christian  population  of  the  globe,  or  merely  such 
a  concurrence  as  would  be  obligatory  upon  a  legislative 
body  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  law,  he  does  not  state. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  33 

This  is  clear,  however,  the  unanimous  decision  of  all 
the  good  men  in  Pennsylvania^  by  an  agreement  to 
abandon  the  observance  of  Sunday  and  to  substitute 
that  of  Thursday,  with  Jewish  severity,  would  not  be 
in  his  eyes  sufficient  to  justify  the  change.  The  unani- 
mous consent,  however,  giving  the  most  liberal  inter- 
pretation, would,  in  his  judgment,  sanction  a  revocation 
of  that  which  he  has  so  constantly  and  earnestly  main- 
tained was  an  "irreversible  decree  of  the  Almighty;" 
and  the  ink  was  not  dry  with  which  he  wrote  this  ad- 
mission, when  in  the  very  next  sentence  he  affirms,  as 
if  repenting  his  liberality,  though  unconscious  of  his 
inconsistency,  "  Instead  of  leaving  man  to  settle  the 
question  by  experiment  and  consultation,  constitutional 
adjustment  and  agreement,  God  was  pleased  to  decide 
it  for  us." 

Two  such  contradictor}-  postulates,  we  imagine,  have 
rarely  in  so  small  a  space  of  type,  been  presented  by 
any  writer  on  this  subject.  We  are  told  by  him  that 
the  fourth  commandment  is  binding  because  of  the 
reasons  set  forth  in  it,  yet  that  notwithstanding  the 
duties  enjoined  on  the  seventh,  it  is  proper  to  pretermit 
and  to  perform  them  on  another  day,  which  is  to  be 
kept  holy,  not  because  God  ceased  from  all  his  works 
on  that  day,  but  because  our  Saviour  rose  from  his 
tomb.  The  observance  of  one  day  is  abandoned  by 
the  Doctor,  notwithstanding  the  '•  irrevocable''  reasons 
for  its  institution,  and  that  of  another  is  enjoined  upon 
a  ground  entirely  different ; — That  all  the  strictness 
which  adhered  to  the  seventh  day,  or  Jewish  Sabbath, 
for  the  special  reasons  set  forth  at  the  time  of  its  en- 
actment, and  upon  which  foundation  the  superstructure 
rested,  is  to  be  imported  into  the  observance  of  another 
day,  and  which  observance  Avas  established  for  causes 

4 


34  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

entirely  distinct  from  those  which  ordained  obedience 
to  the  seventh.  Here  is  contradiction  in  our  author 
beyond  the  power  of  the  most  astute  theologian  to  re- 
concile. If  a  law  be  passed  for  reasons  set  forth  in  its 
'' preamble''  embodying  severe  restrictions,  and  another 
be  passed  for  grounds  set  forth  in  its  preamble,  differing 
entirely  from  those  announced  in  the  first  law,  and  which 
shall  repeal  the  first  law,  it  is  worse  than  absurd  to  tell 
us,  and  thus  mislead  the  consciences  of  men,  that  both 
laws  are  binding.  The  repeal  is  operative,  or  it  is  in- 
operative ;  if  operative,  the  seventh  day  is  obliterated, 
with  all  its  incidents,  and  for  reasons  set  forth  in  the 
'^ preamble"  of  the  repealing  act  (although  upon  Gen- 
tiles the  said  law  is  not  acknowledged  by  us  ever  to 
have  been  binding) ;  if  inoperative,  we  are  again  rele- 
gated to  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

So  strong  a  hold  upon  the  early  Christians  had  the 
notion  of  the  duty  to  regard  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  a 
notion  which,  as  we  shall  see,  was  fated  to  be  revived 
by  the  Puritans  in  the  seventeenth  century,  who  con- 
founded the  seventh  day  with  the  first,  that  these  early 
Christians  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  well  as  that 
which  they  designated  as  the  Lord's  Day. 

There  is  still  a  sect  of  Christians,  who  cannot  con- 
scientiously find,  in  Scripture,  the  sanction  of  this 
change,  and  who  consequently  retain  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath. 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  35 


CHAPTEE  lY. 

That  there  is  no  Scriptural  warrant  for  the  assertion  that  the  ob- 
servance of  Saturday  under  the  Fourth  Commandment  was 
transferred  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

"  Christ  finishing  his  work/'  sa^^s  Dr.  Junkin,  "  for 
the  salvation  of  lost  men.  is  followed  by  his  entering 
into  his  rest  and  securing  a  Sabbatismos  for  his  people. 
Thus  the  creation-example  is  imitated ;  and  this  is  a 
most  satisfactory  reason  of  the  change.  Jesus  rose  from 
the  dead  and  went  to  his  heavenly  glory,  and  thus  con- 
secrated the  first  day  to  holy  services.  His  church 
obeyed  his  command,  and  followed  his  example."  (p. 
119.) 

We  are  told  by  the  Doctor  that  the  reason  given  is 
satisfactory  for  the  change.  What  change  ?  "  That 
Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  and  thus  consecrated  the  first 
day  to  holy  services."  He  was  crucified  upon  Friday, 
and  a  sacrifice  in  the  view  of  the  great  mass  of 
Christians,  essential  to  man's  salvation,  should  render 
Friday  as  proper  a  day  for  perpetual  observance  as 
Sunday.  "His  church  obeyed  his  command^  and  fol- 
lowed his  example."  AYhat  command,  and  what  exam- 
ple ?  If  he  means  a  command  to  consecrate  the  first 
instead  of  the  seventh  day,  and  to  transmute  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  fourth  commandment  from  the  seventh  to 
the  first  day,  we  say  that  a  more  serious  assumption, 
and  so  unsupported  by  a  particle  of  Scriptural  proof, 
cannot  be  condemned  in  terms  too  strong. 


36  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

It  is  to  US  repugnant  beyond  expression,  that  any  one 
should  have  the  boldness  to  allege  in  the  presence  of 
those  who  have  their  eyes  upon  him,  and  their  Testa- 
ment in  their  hands,  that  there  is  any,  the  slightest  proof, 
of  a  command,  or  even  so  much  as  the  faintest  intima- 
tion of  one,  on  the  part  of  our  Lord,  that  we  should 
consecrate  the  first  instead  of  the  seventh  day  by  his 
prospective  resurrection. 

He  never,  during  the  course  of  his  ministry,  made 
allusion  to  any  coming  change,  and  there  is  not  the 
fragment  of  a  proof  that  the  idea  of  substituting  one 
day  for  the  other  ever  crossed  the  mind  of  a  disciple. 
We  defy  the  author  of  Sahhatismos  to  show  any  such 
intention,  and  are  willing  to  rest  the  case  here.  They 
are,  one  and  all,  entirely  silent  upon  the  subject.  The 
Jewish  Sabbath  and  the  obligation  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment fell,  upon  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  into 
the  womb  of  the  past.  It  had  fulfilled  its  mission — 
was  at  an  end  forevermore,  and  any  attempt  to  revive 
it,  comes  within  the  line  of  condemnation,  which  St. 
Paul  has  marked,  in  Eomans  and  Galatians,  in  sharp 
letters  of  living  light,  and  which  shall  blaze  through 
all  time,  for  man's  warning  and  his  guidance. 

The  author  of  Sahhatismos  further  states:  "Then  the 
same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  doors  were  shut,  where  the  disciples  were  as- 
sembled, for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus  and  stood  in 
their  midst,  and  saith  unto  them.  Peace  he  unto  you." 
(John  XX.  19.)  "  The  law  being  changed,  the  day  must 
also  be  changed;  and  here  is  the  express  sanction  of  it. 
The  disciples  were  assembled  :  and  for  what  ?  No  man 
can  doubt — for  religious  worship.  And  the  Master  en- 
ters by  a  miracle,  giving  a  new  proof  of  his  divine  mis- 
sion and  power."  (p.  119.) 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  37 

Here  we  are  told  that  the  law  was  changed.  What 
law  ?  If  he  means  the  law  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
we  supposed  he  had  been  striving  to  show  that  the  law 
had  not  been  changed,  but  instead  of  "  being"  binding 
upon  the  seventh  was  binding  upon  the  first  day,  and 
that  all  the  stringency  of  the  fourth  commandment 
was  merely  transferred  from  one  day  to  the  other. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  may  mean  that  the  law  was 
changed  by  the  alleged  substitution  of  the  seventh  for 
the  first;  but  that  would  be  equivalent  to  the  truism — 
the  day  having  been  changed^  the  day  must  be  changed^ 
or  the  day  was  changed,  because  it  was. 

But  he  asserts  that  the  day  was  changed,  and  that 
the  appearance  of  our  Lord  was  the  sanction  for  it. 
Where  is  the  proof  of  this,  and  how  does  this  comport 
with  his  previous  assertion,  that  the  day  was  actually 
changed  by  the  command  of  our  Saviour  ?  And,  then, 
after  the  positive  assertion  that  the  day  was  changed 
by  divine  command^  but  evidently  under  the  belief  that 
a  doubt  would  naturally  arise  in  the  mind,  he  asks,  who 
can  doubt  but  that  they  were  assembled  for  religious 
worship  ?  We  reply,  that  hundreds  of  the  most  devout 
Christians  have  doubted,  and  still  doubt,  because  they 
saw  no  proof  of  it  in  Scripture. 

Mark,  however,  another  inconsistency  of  the  Doctor. 
The  disciples  were  assembled,  for  religious  worship,  on 
the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and  this  assembling 
is  adduced  as  proof  of  the  change  of  day;  how,  there- 
fore, could  there  have  been  an  agreement  to  change 
the  day,  or  the  sanction  for  a  change,  when  the  war- 
rant for  the  change  did  not  arise  until  afterwards, 
namely,  the  appearance  of  our  risen  Lord,  for  the  first 
time,  to  the  sight  and  knowledge  of  his  disciples. 

The  disciples  were  constantly  together  after  the  cru- 


38  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

cifixion.  They  were  watched  and  surrounded  by  their 
enemies,  doubtless  ready  and  disposed  to  take  their  lives, 
as  they  had  that  of  their  Lord.  Impulse,  fraternity 
sympathy,  and  apprehension  drew  and  kept  them  to- 
gether. 

A  perusal  of  the  four  narratives  of  the  same  event, 
our  Saviour's  first  appearance  to  his  disciples  as  they 
were  gathered  together,  or  in  the  words  of  the  author- 
ity, "at  meat,"  with  closed  doors, /or /ear  0/  the  Jews, 
must  convince  any  reasonable  mind  that  their  convo- 
cation had  no  relation  to  his  resurrection.  In  truth, 
they  did  not  all  know  of  the  resurrection  until  he  aj)- 
peared  in  their  midst,  and  even  then  their  disbelief  of 
his  resurrection  was  a  source  of  anguish  to  their  risen 
Lord. 

"  When  we  proceed,"  says  Powell,  "  to  consider  the 
actual  ministrations  of  Christ,  during  his  sojourn  on 
earth,  in  his  teaching  we  find  no  repeal  of  an  old  dis- 
pensation to  substitute  a  new,  but  a  gradual  method  of 
preparation,  by  spiritual  instruction,  for  a  better  sys- 
tem. .  .  .  Yet  he  offered  no  disparagement  to  the  law, 
as  such.  While  he  insisted  on  its  weightier  matters, 
he  would  not  have  its  lesser  points  neglected.  (Luke 
xi.  42.)  .  .  He  particularly  and  repeatedly  reproved 
the  Pharisaical  moroseness  in  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath ;  himself  wrought  cures  on  it,  and  vindicated 
works  of  charity  and  necessity  (Matt.  xii.  1;  Luke  xiii. 
15;  John  V.  9,  &c.);  yet  only  by  such  arguments  and 
examples  as  the  Jewish  teachers  themselves  allowed, 
and  their  own  Scriptures  afi*orded  authority  for;  but 
he  did  not  in  any  way  modify  or  abolish  it,  or  sub- 
stitute any  other  for  it.  At  the  same  time,  he  fully 
asserted  his  power  to  do  so.  He  declares  himself  Lord, 
also,  of  the  Sabbath,  i.  e.,  he  had  power  to  abrogate  it 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  39 

partially  or  wholly,  if  he  thought  fit;  but  he  did  not  at 
that  time  use  such  power.  And  more  precisely,  he 
added  (Mark  i.  29),  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  the  man, 
didrbv  avOpwnov,  not  the  man  for  the  Sabbath  {0  w^OpwT.oq)\ 
it  was  an  institution  enjoined  by  way  of  adapation  to 
the  case  of  those  to  whom  the  precept  was  given,  but 
of  no  inherent  obligation  in  itself."  Again,  the  truth 
of  the  following  reflections,  from  the  same  author,  will 
correct  the  error  into  which,  as  the  reader  has  already 
noticed,  man}^  theologians  have  fallen — a  disposition  to 
regard  the  fourth  commandment  as  abrogated  under 
the  new  dispensation,  when  such  was  the  case  so  far 
only  as  the  Jews  were  concerned,  but  which,  as  to  the 
Gentiles,  and,  therefore,  as  to  us,  never  had  existence. 
It  would  be  just  as  proper  to  speak  of  the  repeal  of  an 
early  law  of  the  Colony  of  Maryland,  as  affecting  Penn- 
sylvania, when  as  to  the  latter  the  statute  never  was 
in  force.  It  is  of  moment  that  this  distinction  should 
be  kept  before  us. 

"  Yet  we  cannot  but  notice  among  the  larger  portion 
of  the  Protestant  testimonies,  whether  of  public  for- 
mularies or  of  individual  opinion,  indications  of  that 
primary  confusion  of  thought  which  seems  all  along  to 
have  led  them  to  imagine  some  previous  obh'gation  of 
Old  Testament  ordinances  on  the  Gentiles,  which  was 
at  length  abrogated  or  had  ceased,  instead  of  the  simple 
admission,  that  no  such  obligation  had  ever  existed. 
This  idea  seems  to  have  more  or  less  hampered  all 
their  expositions  and  arguments.  Thus,  in  many  such 
statements  we  find  the  idea  of  a  change  or  substitutioji 
made  by  the  Christian  Church  of  the  Lord's  day  for  the 
Sabbath,  inculcated,  as  if  it  were  possible  for  any  hitman 
authority  to  change  a  6?ii;me  ordinance,  or  as  if  the  Chris- 


40  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

tian  Church,  by  any  known  declaration,  had  ever  pre- 
tended to  make  such  a  change. 

"The  notion  of  the  complete  identification  of  the 
Lord's  day  with  the  Sabbath  seems  to  have  been  first 
formally  propounded  in  this  country  by  Dr.  Bound 
(1595),  a  divine  of  great  authority  among  the  Puritans; 
from  whom  it  was  adopted  by  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly in  their  Confession,  and  thence  has  become  a  recog- 
nized tenet  of  the  Scottish  and  other  Presbyterian  com- 
munions in  Great  Britain,  and  imported  by  them  to 
America,  though  as  wholly  unknown  to  the  continental 
Protestants  as  to  the  old  unreformed  church." — FowelVs 
Christianity;'  &c.,  117,  120,  171. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  41 

CIIAPTEE  Y. 

The  compulsory  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

The  attempt  to  enforce,  upon  every  citizen,  as  a 
moral  law,  and  for  reasons  not  applicable  under  the 
new  dispensation,  to  compel,  we  say,  an  observance  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  no  matter  what  may  be  the 
religious  convictions,  or  the  light  in  which  the  subject 
may  be  viewed,  is  a  tyranny  which  language  can  hardly 
be  found  adequate  to  describe.  There  is  a  broad,  well- 
defined  line  between  the  enactment  of  a  law  from  mo- 
tives of  public  policy,  and  the  enactment  of  a  law  which 
derives  its  sanction  mainly  from  religious  grounds. 

Upon  a  question  as  to  what  would  or  what  would 
not  promote  the  public  welfare,  men  may  honestly  dif- 
fer; but  when  we  are  compelled  by  law  to  desist  from 
an  act  on  one  day  of  the  week,  which,  if  done  upon  any 
other,  would  be  proper,  nay,  perhaps,  commendable, 
because  its  performance  offers,  in  the  opinion  of  some^ 
a  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  such  compulsion  becomes 
oppression. 

We  speak  with  deliberation  and  warning,  and  believe 
that  the  judgment  of  the  intelligent  and  unbiassed 
reader  of  history  will  sustain  us,  when  we  say,  that 
prohibitions  upon  religious  grounds,  especially  where 
the  reasons  given  admit  of  question  as  to  soundness, 
have,  and  always  will  end,  in  a  reaction  unfriendly  to 
the  progress  of  sacred  truth,  and  fearfully  prolific  of 
latitudinarianism  and  infidelity. 

The  strictness  of  the  enforcement  of  the  "law  of  the 
Sabbath''  as  it  once  prevailed  would  not  be  now  endured, 
but  if  such  could  be  sustained  by  a  strength  of  argu- 


42  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

ment  not  to  be  gainsaid,  if  it  were  shown  beyond  the 
power  of  refutation  that  the  fourth  commandment  is 
transferred  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  is  morally 
and  religiously  binding,  upon  all  mankind,  then,  as  we 
have  already  said,  its  observance  should  be  compelled, 
come  what  might.  When,  however,  it  is  attempted  to 
impose  on  a  community  an  observance  which  many 
view  as  abrogated^  which  others  are  convinced  never 
had  existence  as  to  the  Gentile  world,  and  which  even 
the  most  rigid  do  not  with  strictness  regard; — when 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  fourth  commandment  is 
binding,  an  invidious  distinction  is  made  between  its 
breach  by  the  rich  Christian  (we  regret  to  use  the  term, 
but  truth  compels  us)  and  its  violation  by  the  poor,  and, 
which,  if  not  in  every  case  sanctioned  by  the  ministers 
of  religion,  is  at  all  events  not  by  them  condemned. 
Indeed,  when  they  in  their  own  persons,  and  perhaps 
unwittingly,  in  many  ways,  violate  the  letter  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  and  overlook  its  violation  in 
others,  and  yet  resist  that  which,  if  permitted  would 
amount  to  no  worse  a  violation  than  that  they  sanction 
or  do  not  censure ;  the  inconsistency  becomes  so  enor- 
mous that  the  spirit  rebels  against  it. 

How  damaging,  therefore,  to  the  public  morals,  and 
what  a  hinderance  to  the  spread  of  religion  is  the 
imposition  of  a  religious  ordinance  which  is  taught  to 
be  binding,  but  which  is  in  letter  and  spirit  violated 
by  teacher  and  people  many  times  before  the  Sunday 
ends.  So  persuaded  was  St.  Paul  of  the  danger  of  a 
slavish  and  superstitious  adherence  to  a  commandment 
intended  for  a  state  of  things  which  had  passed  to  re- 
turn no  more,  that  he  denounced  it  upon  several  occa- 
sions, especially  in  those  celebrated  passages  in  Eomans, 
Galatians,  and  Colossians. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  43 


CIIAPTEE  YL 

The  Three  Texts. 
One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another  :   another  esteemeth 

EVERY  DAY  ALIKE,       LeT  EVERY  MAN    BE  FULLY  PERSUADED   IN   HIS   OWN 
MIND. 

He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  he 
that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  lord  he  doth  not  regard  it. 

He  THAT  EATETH,  EATETH  TO  THE  LORD,  FOR  HE  GIVETH  GOD  THANKS  ; 
AND  HE  THAT  EATETH  NOT,  TO  THE  LORD  HE  EATETH  NOT,  AND  GIVETH 

God  THANKS. — Romans,  xiv.  5,  6. 

Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years. 
i  am  afraid  op  you,  lest  i  have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain. — 
Galatians,  iv.  10,  11. 

Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect 

OF  A  HOLYDAY,  OR  OF  THE  NEW  MOON,  OR  OF  THE  SaBBATH  days  : 

Which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come  ;  but  the  body  is  of  Christ. — 
Cohssiaus,  ii.  16,  17. 


These  texts  are  formidable  obstacles  to  those  who, 
dogmatically,  assert  that  the  fourth  commandment  is 
morally  binding.  Some  Sabbatarian  writers,  knowing 
that  any  attempt  at  exposition  would  be  but  to  confute 
all  that  they  had  previously  maintained,  discreetly  pass 
them  without  even  so  much  as  an  allusion ;  others,  re- 
lying upon  the  docility  of  their  reader,  or  his  supposed 
willingness  to  accept  any  gloss  that  might  appear  to 
interpret  a  difficulty  felt  by  a  mind  read}-  to  believe 
anything  in  support  of  a  foregone  conclusion,  have 
boldly  ventured  to  grapple  with  these  texts  and  to  ex- 
plain them  away,  but  sadly  to  their  discomfiture,  and 


44  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

the  strengthening  of  the  hands  of  their  opponents; 
others,  again,  to  their  immortal  honor,  and  whose 
names  should  be  held  in  precious  remembrance  by 
the  just,  have  frankly  acknowledged  their  full  force 
and  plain  import  as  proving  either  the  entire  abroga- 
tion of  the  fourth  commandment  or  its  inapplicability 
to  the  Gentile  world,  and  this  at  the  risk  of  being  de- 
nounced infidels  or  schismatics. 

After  these  admissions,  by  so  many  divines,  of  the 
lion  in  the  path,  I  was  curious  to  know  how  Dr.  Junkin 
met  these  cogent  texts. 

Out  of  a  book  of  two  hundred  and  eleven  pages  he 
devotes  but  two  to  the  discussion  of  the  most  essential 
points  in  the  whole  controversy,  and  this  he  does  in 
the  most  superficial  and  perfunctory  manner,  while  the 
rest  of  the  volume  is  filled  with  citation  upon  citation 
from  Deuteronomy,  Leviticus,  &c.,  which,  after  what 
the  apostle  has  written,  have  as  much  to  do  with  the 
subject,  as  the  Temple  of  Solomon  has  with  St.  Paul's 
Cathedral. 

As  to  Eomans,  he  omits  the  sixth  verse  altogether; 
a  vital  omission,  in  the  connection,  and  skims  lightly 
over  the  fifth,  as  if  the  less  he  had  to  do  with  it  the 
better  for  himself  The  words  "  every  day"  do  not,  in 
his  opinion,  mean  the  weekly  Jewish  Sabbath,  but  the 
"  annual  Sabbaths."  The  first  day  of  the  week,  our 
present  Sunday,  which  the  Doctor  insists  was  then  ob- 
served— having,  as  is  alleged,  been  substituted  for  the 
seventh — St.  Paul,  he  says,  does  7iot  mean,  but  Christ- 
mas, Good  Friday,  Easter  Monday,  Ascension  Day;  to 
which  he  appears  to  have  antipathy,  "  in  this  enlight- 
ened age,"  he  insists  that  St.  Paul  does  mean.  We  can- 
not understand  by  what  process  he  arrives  at  this  ap- 
plication of  the  text,  while  he  insists  that  the  words 


THK    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  45 

^^ every  day"  mean  the  annual  Sabbaths;  rejecting  the 
only  interpretation  of  which  the  text  is  susceptible, 
unless  in  the  possession  of  some  occult  source  of  knowl- 
edge, and  through  which  he  now  informs  us  that  al- 
though St.  Paul  did  not  intend  to  apply  the  words  every 
day  to  the  seventh,  or  to  the  first  days  of  the  week,  he 
did  mean  to  apply  them  to  Christmas,  Good  Friday,  &c. 

The  Doctor  can  find  the  "command"  of  our  Saviour, 
that  we  should  keep  the  first,  instead  of  the  seventh 
day,  when  none  is  given,  nor  even  the  allusion  to  one 
made,  and  yet  can  persuade  himself  that  every  day  does 
not  mean  every  day,  although  there  is  no  qualifying 
word  justifying  such  conclusion.  The  passage  in  Colos- 
sians  is  despatched  in  as  business-like  and  off-hand 
manner  as  that  in  Eomans. 

After  some  preliminary  allusions,  the  object  of  which 
no  one  would  suspect,  because  no  one  could  anticipate 
their  application  to  the  passages  in  question,  he  says — 
(and  mark  well  the  casual  air,  the  "jaunty"  mode,  in 
which  he  treats  the  topic,  as  if  it  were  impossible,  nay 
preposterous,  to  have  other  than  one  opinion,  and  that 
the  one  he  entertains)  :  "And  just  here,  whilst  these  facts 
are  before  us,  we  may  as  well  dispose  of  an  argument,  on 
which  great  stress  is  laid  by  the  opponents  of  the  holy 
day;  and  whose  entire  force  is  destroyed  by  the  dis- 
tinction here  presented"  (that  of  the  annual  Sabbaths). 
"It  is  built  on  Col.  ii.  16,  'Let  no  man  therefore  judge 
you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  an  holy  da}-, 
or  of  the  new  moon,  or  the  Sabbaths.'  It  is  obvious, 
at  a  glance,  that  the  Apostle  is  cautioning  his  readers 
against  Judaizing  teachers^ — persons  disposed  to  enforce 

*  The  Doctor  seems  happily  unconscious  that  he  is  painting  his 
own  portrait. 

5 


46  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

observances  of  the  ceremonial  law."  .  .  "The  Sabbaths 
are  those  we  have  just  been  discussing;  the  three  holy 
days,  including  the  new  moons;  and  the  four  feasts, 
which  we  have  seen  are  Sabbaths,  but  not  the  weekly 
rest-days"  (page  83). 

In  the  quotation  he  takes  a  liberty  with  the  author- 
ized version,  and  the  second  verse  of  the  text  is  omit- 
ted (pp.  83,  84). 

We  fear  that  this  exegesis  of  some  of  the  clearest 
sentences  in  Holy  Writ  will  weaken  the  confidence  of 
the  reader  in  the  soundness  of  our  author's  theology. 
"  And  just  here,"  and  "  we  may  as  well,"  &c.,  as  if  the 
solemn  warning  of  St.  Paul  could  be  "  disposed"  of  in 
this  incidental,  trivial,  and  dogmatic  manner. 

The  Evangelists  have  not  a  word  uj^on  the  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day  of  the  week ;  nor  has  Paul  one 
word  upon  the  subject;  while  in  three  different  epistles, 
as  if  his  heart  was  torn  with  anguish  at  the  Judaizing 
spirit  of  teacher  and  people,  he  expostulates  and  ex- 
hprts  against  stated  observances,  such  as  had  but  now 
ceased  to  exist,  well  knowing  the  earthly  preference  to 
worship  God  at  stated  times,  and  not  to  keep  him  in 
remembrance  and  worship  him  at  all  times. 

Such  was  Paul's  despondency,  that  in  those  few 
words  to  the  Galatians,  all  allusion  to  which  the  Doc- 
tor has  passed  over,  he  reiterates  his  warning, 

"Ye  observe  Days,  and  months,  and  times,  and 
years. 

"  I  AM  AFRAID  OF  YOU,  LEST  I  HAVE  BESTOWED  UPON 
YOU  LABOR  IN  VAIN." 

To  recur  to  the  language  of  the  author  of  "  Sab- 
batismos,"  it  will  be  seen  with  what  apprehension  he 
views  any  other  interpretation  of  the  passages  in  Ro- 
mans and  Colossians  than  that  he  has  assigned,  namely, 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  47 

that  the  Apostle  does  not  mean  to  instance  weekly 
Sabbaths,  claiming  that  the  entire  force  of  the  argu- 
ment against  him  is  destroyed  by  the  distinction  which 
he  draws.  It  must  be  admitted,  therefore,  that  if  his 
distinction  has,  by  some  of  the  leading  authorities  of 
his  own  as  well  as  by  those  of  other  denominations, 
been  j^ronounced  unsound,  his  case  is  gone.  He  has 
made  the  issue,  and  must  abide  the  result. 

And  now  let  us  see  how  the  leading  commentators 
interpret  these  texts,  and  regard  the  distinction  which 
our  author  attempts  to  make,  and  upon  which  he  seems 
80  much  to  pride  himself. 


48  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 


CHAPTEE  YII. 

The  opinions  of  commentators  on  The  Three  Texts. 

In  the  standard  commentary  of  Blackley  and  Hawes, 
the  passage  in  Colossians  ii.  16,  is  thus  treated:  ^^Jjet 
no  man  judge — Metonomy  (the  antecedent  for  the  con- 
sequent)— to  disregard  any  one  who  wishes  to  judge 
you ;  see  verse  18.  Therefore — a  deduction  from  verse 
18,  15;  see  verse  16;  comp.  note  on  verse  20,  chap.  iii. 
1512.  In  ineat — Tapeinosis  (less  said  than  meant).  In 
respect  of  a  holy  day.  The  phrase  in  respect  of  appears  to 
have  a  separate  force.  Some  might  harass  the  faithful 
about  meat  and  drink ;  others,  again,  about  holy  days. 
The  holy  day  is  annual;  the  new  moon  monthly;  the 
Sabbath  weekly;  comp.  Gal.  iv.  10,  note;  or  of  the 
Sabbath  days — the  plural  for  the  singular.  Matt.  xii.  1, 
used  here  in  a  more  significant  sense.  The  several 
days  of  the  week  are  called  Sabbaths,  Matt,  xxviii.  1 ; 
consequently  Paul  implies  that  all  distinction  of  days 
is  removed,  for  on  no  occasion  has  he  written  more 
plainly  on  the  Sabbath.  After  Christ,  the  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath  came;  he,  before  his  Passion,  clearly  taught 
freedom  from  the  Sabbath.  After  his  resurrection  he 
made  a  more  open  declaration  through  the  mouth  of 
Paul.  Up  to  the  present  time  it  has  not  been  definitely 
shown  how  much  is  due  to  the  Sabbath,  and  how  much 
to  the  Lord's  day.  This  has  been  left  as  a  measure  of 
every  man's  faith.  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is 
not  praised  and  is  not  commanded.    An  appointed  day 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  49 

is  needful  and  useful  for  all  occupied  in  worldly  mat- 
ters. Those  who  enjoy  a  perpetual  Sabbath  Gnjoy  more 
freedom.  The  Sabbath  is  a  type  of  eternity :  Heb.  iv. 
3,  4;  nevertheless  its  binding  force  does  not  on  this  ac- 
count continue  under  the  New  Testament ;  for,  if  so,  the 
new  moon  observance  should  also  be  retained:  Is.  Ixvi.  23." 
"The  Critical  English  Test,  &c.,  showing  the  Precise 
Eesults  of  Modern  Criticism  and  Exegesis.  Vol.  ii.  704. 
Edited  by  W.  L.  Blackley,  M.A.,  and  Eev.  James 
Hawes,  M.A.   London  and  New  York,  1866." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  this  language  gives  no  color 
to  the  Doctor's  assertion,  that  the  words  "  Sabbath 
days"  mean  annual  Sabbaths. 

Powell  forcibly  remarks  upon  the  passages  in  Colos- 
sians  and  in  Romans: 

"  The  distinction  of  meats,  clean  or  unclean,  of  days 
to  be  kept  holy  or  not,  remained  actuall}^  in  force  to 
the  Jewish  Christians  until  their  convictions  became 
sufficiently  enlightened  to  see  the  designed  abolition  of 
those  distinctions.  To  the  Gentile,  it  was  equally  clear 
that  they  were  not  obligatory  on  Azm,  while  his  service 
was  a  spiritual  one  in  faith.  Under  no  such  obligation 
originally,  he  did  not  now  incur  it;  and  (if  it  were 
needed)  a  still  more  positive  declaration  of  his  freedom 
from  such  ordinances  is  made  by  St.  Paul,  who  places 
the  Sabbaths  in  exactly  the  same  predicament  as  new 
moons  and  distinctions  of  meats;  and  distinctly  de- 
clares all  alike  to  be  shadows  (Col.  ii.  18).  Even 
among  those  who  had  conformed  to  the  law,  in  Sab- 
baths and  meats  each  might  judge  for  himself  (Rom. 
xiv.  5,  6).  There  was  no  moral  immutable  obligation, 
no  natural  or  eternal  distinction ;  but  neither  party  was 
to  judge  the  other.  Each  acting  in  faith  was  accepted 
in  doing  so;  to  act  otherwise  would  be  sin  (Rom.  xiv. 

5* 


50  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

23).  But  each  was  exhorted  to  mutual  charity,  a  line 
of  conduct  preeminently  recommended  by  the  Apostle's 
own  example  (1  Cor.  x.  23;  viii.  13,  &c.).  But  there 
was  no  compromise  of  essential  truths.  We  cannot  but 
be  struck  with  the  contrast  of  the  Apostle's  liberality 
of  sentiment  with  his  strenuous  assertion  of  Christian 
freedom — his  anxiety  to  avoid  tempting  a  weak  brother 
to  offend,  and  his  stern  refusal  to  give  way  to  those 
who  sought  to  impose  the  obligations  of  the  law  on  the 
Gentiles — his  charity  in  practice  contrasted  with  his 
firmness  in  teaching — his  conciliation  in  conduct  con- 
trasted with  his  uncompromising  boldness  in  doctrine." 

Again : 

"All  the  original  Christian  institutions  were  inde- 
pendent and  simple.  We  must  carefully  distinguish, 
from  the  more  essential  and  permanent,  some  minor 
ordinances  of  a  purely  temporal  and  occasional  charac- 
ter, which  certainly  bear  a  more  formal  appearance, 
but  were  evidently  adapted  for  the  sake  of  peace  and 
union,  and  especially  for  the  great  object  of  mutually 
conciliating  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts,  or  from 
a  wish,  not  abruptly  to  violate  existing  customs,  as  e.  g. 
the  injunction  in  the  apostles'  decree  (Acts  xv.),  already 
referred  to,  and  some  of  those  given  by  St.  Paul  to  the 
Church  at  Corinth  (as  throughout  1  Cor.  v-vii.),  and  to 
Timothy  (1  Tim.  v.,  &c.)." 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  practice  of  fasting, 
though  retained  by  the  apostles  on  some  occasions,  yet 
there  does  not  exist  a  single  precept  or  hint  for  its 
general  adoption  by  Christians;  much  less  is  there 
any  sanction  for  other  ascetic  observances  which  soon 
claimed  an  availing  merit  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of 
the  Gospel.     So  far  as  they  had  begun  to  prevail  they 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  51 

met  with  unequivocal  censure  (Col.  ii.  18,  23 ;  I  Tim. 
iv.  3,  8,  7)  from  St.  Paul.  Of  other  institutions  of 
Christian  worship  very  little  can  be  collected  from  the 
New  Testament.  At  first  the  disciples  met  daily  for 
prayer  and  communion  (Acts  ii.  26).  In  one  instance, 
afterwards,  some  think  it  may  be  implied  that  they  as- 
sembled peculiarly  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  (Acts 
XX.  7.  See  Jahns'  Biblical  Antiq.,  §  398,  and  He^^lin's 
Hist,  of  Sabb.  ii.  25).  Though  the  inference  is  a  very 
doubtful  one;  and  in  the  latest  period  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament age  'the  Lord's  day'*  is  spoken  of  once,  but 
wholly  without  explanation,  though  the  expression  is 
understood  by  some  in  a  totally  different  sense.  Thus 
the  evidence  from  this  observance  amounts  to  little  or 
nothing."    Christianity  without  Judaism,  135,  136,  149. 

Chalmers,  of  Scotland,  in  his  Commentary  on  Eomans, 
N.  Y.,  1863,  p.  486,  gives  no  explanation  whatever  of 
the  word  "  every  day." 

Dr.  Hodge,  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church, 
in  his  Commentary  on  Eomans,  says:  "Paul  does  not 
mean  the  Christian  Sabbath,  that  is,  the  '  Lord's  day,  or 
first  day  of  the  week.'  " — Hodge  on  Romans,  Phila.,  1864. 

This  distinguished  divine,  although  difi'ering  in  his 
views  from  those  entertained  by  his  friend,  the  Eev. 
Jas.  W.  Alexander,  of  his  own  church,  and  by  Luther 
and  Calvin,  does  not  agree  with  our  Doctor  in  believing 
that  by  the  words  "Sabbath,"  "every  day,"  &c.,  Paul 
meant  "  once  a  year,''  and  has,  therefore,  a  better  opinion 
of  that  apostle's  soundness  and  consistency  than  appears 
to  be  entertained  by  our  author. 

The  Eev.  Albert  Barnes,  in  his  Commentary  on 
Eomans,  does  not  think  the  Apostle  had  reference  to 

*  I  was  in  the  spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,  &c. — Kev.  i.  10. 


52  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

the  Christian  Sabbath;  but  does  not  say,  as  our  author 
does,  that  the  words  do  not  apply  to  the  Jewish  weekly 
Sabbath  (Col.  ii.  16,  17). 

"As  concerning,"  bsljs  Daill:^,  "  the  Sabbath,  that  is, 
the  seventh  day  of  every  week,  which  we  call  Saturday, 
no  one  is  ignorant  with  what  devotion  it  was  observed 
and  kept  holy  by  the  Jews,  according  to  the  ordinance 
of  God,  repeated  in  various  parts  of  the  books  of  Moses, 
and  even  registered  among  the  ten  articles  of  the  Deca- 
logue. ...  So  you  see  here  the  Apostle  points  at  all 
three  kinds  of  Jewish  feasts;  those  of  the  year,  which 
he  calls  simply  festivals,  namely,  the  Passover,  Pente- 
cost, and  the  Tabernacles ;  those  of  months,  which  were 
new  moons;  and,  finally,  those  of  the  weeks,  which  were 
Sabbaths.  .  .  . 

"  But  these  men  put  them  in  subjection  to  days  and 
months,  and  reduce  them  under  the  yoke  of  the  Jews, 
and  make  their  piety  to  depend  on  the  Almanac.  If 
they  do  not  observe  all  the  days  of  the  year ;  if  they 
fast  not  one  day;  if  they  eat  not  on  another;  if  one  day 
they  do  not  perform  penance;  if  they  make  not  mirth 
on  another;  though  upon  the  former  they  should  have 
ceased  to  rejoice  in  G-od,  and  upon  the  latter  to  afflict 
themselves  for  their  sins  or  their  suiferings,  they  com- 
mit a  heinous  sin,  though  they  did  it  without  contempt 
or  scandal.  .  .  . 

"  Was  ever  a  discipline  less  reasonable  and  more  con- 
trary to  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  who  would  not  have 
Christians  condemned  for  the  distinctions  of  a  festival 
day^  of  a  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath;  who  reprehends 
the  Galatians  for  their  observing  days,  and  months,  and 
times,  and  years  (Gal.  iv.  10),  and  counts  it  for  a  weakness 
or  fault  to  esteem  one  day  above  another  (Eom.  xiv.  5). 

"Neither  may  it  be  replied  here  that  we  always  dis- 
criminate Sundays,   and  Easter,   and   Christmas,   and 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  53 

Pentecost.  We  observe  them  for  order's  sake,  not  for 
religion's;  for  the  polity  of  the  Church,  and  not  upon 
scruples  of  devotion.*  For  what  a  confusion  would 
there  be,  if  we  had  no  da^^s  appointed  for  the  assem- 
bling of  the  faithful !  It  is  for  our  mutual  edification, 
and  not  for  the  worth  and  value  of  the  days  that  we 
observe  them." — An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  Colos- 
sians.  By  the  Eev.  Jean  Daille,  Minister  of  the  French 
Eeformed  Church  at  Charenton.  A.D.  1639,  pp.  376, 
382.     Presbyterian  Board. 

Scott  in  his  commentaries  in  regard  to  the  words 
"Sabbath  days,"  in  Colossians  ii.,  says:  "Doubtless 
they  related  principally  to  the  weekly  Sabbaths,  which, 
as  observed  on  the  seventh  daj",  was  now  become  a 
part  of  the  abrogated  Jewish  law."  He,  therefore,  does 
not  sanction  our  author's  interpretation. 

Gillies  offers  no  comment  whatever  on  the  texts  in 
Eom.  xiv.  and  Gal.  iv.  ^^  New  Testament.  John  Gillies, 
D.D.,  late  one  of  the  ministers  of  Glasgow."  London, 
1810. 

"  "  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  author  should  have  been 
influenced  by  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  times  as  not  to  dis- 
tinguish the  Sabbath  above  other  festivals  as  a  Divine  institution 
of  perpetual  obligation." — Editor,  Presbyterian  Board. 

We  cannot  pass  without  observation  the  above  extraordinary 
note  ;  as  if  the  text  of  the  excellent  and  devout  Daille  of  Charen- 
ton were  poison  and  needed  this  antidote.  The  editor,  when  thus 
speaking,  dogmatizes  and  deserves  censure  for  the  iinscholarly 
proceeding  ;  for  when  he  writes  of  the  "  prevailing  opinion  of  the 
times,"  as  if  the  views  of  Daille's  were  a  temporary  heresy,  he 
"ignores"  the  fact  that  Paul,  the  "Pathers,"  Calvin,  the  great 
light  of  the  editor's  own  division  of  the  Church,  and  we  may  say 
all  of  any  note  to  the  period  of  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  thought  as  did  this  worthy  commentator.  That  which 
the  editor  condemns  is  orthodoxy,  and  that,  we  regret  to  say,  which 
he  commends  is  the  heresy. 


54  '  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

Calvin.  "He  that  regardeth  the  day,"  &c.  .  .  .  "  For- 
asrauch/'  says  Calvin,  "  as  Paul  knew  certainly  that  the 
observation  of  da3^s  proceedeth  for  the  not  knowing  of 
Christ,  it  is  not  credible  that  he  did  not  wholly  defend 
such  a  compliance;  and  yet  the  words  seem  to  import 
that  he  sinneth  not,  which  observeth  the  day,  for  noth- 
ing can  be  acceptable  to  God  unless  it  be  good."  Cal- 
vin on  Romans. 

Stuart  of  Andover  is  candid  enough  to  admit  in 
effect  that  the  words  "  every  day"  are  by  some  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  although 
not  a  few  think  otherwise.     He  remarks: 

"  Whether  the  Apostle  means  to  include  the  Sabbath, 
or  rather  the  Lord's  day,  under  what  he  says  here  of  the 
special  observance  of  particular  days,  has  been  called 
in  question  by  not  a  few  distinguished  commentators 
and  divines.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  early  ages  of 
the  Church  a  distinction  was  made  between  Sabbath 
and  Lord's  day.  The  former  was  the  Jewish  weekly 
Sabbath,  i.  e.  the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  It  em- 
braced all  the  occasional  fasts  and  feasts  presented  by 
the  Mosaic  law  (comp.  Col.  ii.  16 ;  Gal.  iv.  10).  Such 
was  the  Jewish  use  of  Sahbaton.  But  the  earlj^  Chris- 
tians, in  order  to  distinguish  this  from  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  on  which  they  held  their  religious  assemblies 
of  worship  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2 ;  Acts  xx.  7),  called  the  first 
day  of  the  week  (Jj  xupiaxi]  ■^p.ipa?)  Lord's  day,  in  the 
writings  of  the  ecclesiastical  fathers.  That  it  was  very 
early  made,  even  in  apostles'  times,  is  sufiiciently  evi- 
dent from  comparing  Col.  ii.  16,  and  Eev.  i.  10."  Com- 
mentary on  Romans.    By  Moses  Stuart.    Andover,  1835. 

Calvin,  with  his  usual  boldness,  treats  the  passage 
in  Colossians,  which,  with  the  other  texts,  the  Doctor 
thinks  has  so  little  to  do  w4th  this  important  question, 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  55 

in  a  mode  the  candid  will  perhaps  admit  completely 
"  disposes"  of  an}^  further  doubt  upon  the  subject.  In 
discussing  the  passage  in  Colossians,  he  observes  that 
what  St.  Paul  had  "previously  said  of  circumcision  he 
now  extends  to  the  difference  of  meat  and  days.  He 
says,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  men  to 
make  us  subject  to  the  observance  of  rites  that  Christ 
by  his  death  abolished  and  exempted  us  from  their 
yoke;  that  we  allow  not  ourselves  to  be  fettered  by 
the  laws  which  they  have  imposed.  But  some  one  will 
answer  that  we  still  keep  up  observances.  I  answer 
that  we  do  not,  by  any  means,  observe  days  as  though 
there  were  any  sacredness  in  holidays,  or  as  though  it 
were  not  lawful  to  labor  upon  them,  but  that  respect 
is  paid  to  government  and  order,  not  to  days."  Calvin's 
Commentaries  on  Philippians,  Colossians,  &c.,  p.  192.  Trans- 
lated by  the  Eev.  John  Pringle.  Translated  for  the 
Calvin  Translation  Society.     Edinburgh,  1851. 

It  were  in  our  power,  did  we  deem  it  necessary,  to 
add  many  additional  authorities  in  ojDposition  to  our 
author's  interpretation  of  these  texts,  but  the  reader 
will  doubtless  agree  with  us  in  thinking  those  which  we 
have  cited  are  sufficient. 

Having  now  proved  that  the  three  texts,  as  explained 
by  many  eminent  commentators,  do  not  sanction  the 
interpretation  put  upon  them  by  the  author  of  "  Sab- 
batismos,"  we  proceed  to  show  how  formidable  these 
passages  (especially  that  in  "Eomans")  are  regarded; 
so  much  so,  that  the  most  strenuous  and  accomplished 
advocates  of  the  opposite  side  of  the  question  deem 
discretion  the  better  part,  preferring,  as  the  lesser 
difficulty,  suppression  to  any  attempt  to  remove  the 
obstacles  from  their  path.  Mr.  Cox,  in  his  treatise,  at 
page  56,  says : 


56  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

"As  far  as  Dr.  Lorimer's  treatise  on  what  he  calls 
the  Protestant  and  Popish  Sabbaths  permits  us  to 
know,  he  has  not  yet  discovered  the  existence,  in  the 
Bible,  of  this  the  most  explicit  and,  perhaps,  only  ab- 
solute declaration  which  it  contains  on  the  subject  of 
the  controversy  (the  text,  Eomans  xiv.);  and  I  am 
compelled  to  add,  that  in  nine-tenths  of  the  Sabbatarian 
treatises  and  sermons  which  I  have  read  (and  they  are 
not  a  few),  its  existence  is  similarly  ignored.  Either 
the  writers  thought  the  passage  of  no  importance,  or 
they  did  not;  if  they  did,  their  notion  is  strange  and 
unaccountable ;  if  they  did  not,  then  by  passing  over 
it  in  silence,  while  huddling  together  from  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New,  but  principally  from  the  Old, 
a  number  of  passages  which,  when  tested  by  those 
rational  principles  of  interpretation  which  are  con- 
stantly applied  in  every  department  of  literature  but 
the  theological,  and  are  professed  even  by  theologians 
who  forget  them  in  practice,  evidently  have  no  bearing 
whatever  on  the  question  at  issue — by  following,  I  say, 
this  remarkable  course,  they  plainly  confess  that  the 
apostolic  declaration  is  conclusive  against  them. 

The  absence  of  these  words  of  St.  Paul  from  the  texts 
quoted  in  the  Scottish  Confession  and  Catechisms,  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at ;  for,  as  we  shall  afterwards  see, 
it  was  not  till  these  famous  productions  were  completed 
by  the  divines  at  Westminster,  that  the  scriptural  texts 
which  were  thought  to  establish  the  doctrines  there 
stated  were  added  in  the  margin,  by  command  of  the 
Parliament,  under  whose  authority  the  Assembly  were 
acting.  Of  course  nothing  of  a  hostile  tendency  could, 
in  such  circumstances,  be  included  among  the  "proofs,'' 
nor,  indeed,  could  inconvenient  texts,  in  any  circum- 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  57 

Btances,  have  found  admission  into  such  manifestoes  as 
these. 

Even  the  able  Dr.  TVardlaw,  in  his  Discourses  on  the 
Sabbath,  makes  no  attempt  whatever  to  remove  this 
stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  the  perplexed  Sabba- 
tarian. He  extracts  from  Belsham's  Review  of  Wilber- 
force,  p.  139,  a  passage  in  which  the  words,  "every  day 
alike,"  are  quoted  and  given  effect  to;  but,  instead  of 
attempting  to  ^rove  that  an  erroneous  interpretation  is 
there  put  upon  them,  what  does  he  do?  He  tries  to 
divert  attention  from  the  difficulty,  and  to  weaken  the 
force  of  Belsham's  observations  by  the  mean  device  of 
rousing  the  orthodox  prejudices  of  his  readers  against 
the  writer  as  a  Socinian !  "  We  need  not,"  says  he, 
"  be  greatly  astonished,  that  one  who  could  not  find  in 
the  Scriptures  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Christ, 
the  depravity  of  human  nature,  and  the  existence  and 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  should  have  been  little  at 
a  loss  to  exclude  from  them  the  duty  of  sanctifjdng  the 
Lord's  day ;  and  that,  even  as  to  the  public  worship  of 
that  day.  he  should  have  made  light  of  the  admitted 
example  of  the  apostolic  churches,  commending  it,  in- 
deed, as  a  '  laudable  and  useful  custom,'  and  conde- 
scending to  'approve  of  its  continuance,'  but  not  at 
all  allowing  in  it  any  obligation  of  divine  authority." 
— Discourses  on  the  Sabbath,  by  Ealph  Wardlaw,  D.D., 
p.  100.    Glasgow,  1832. 

This  is  all  that  Dr.  Wardlaw  can  say  to  neutralize 
the  words  of  the  Apostle;  and  it  is  a  plain  confession 
of  inability  to  propound  a  syllable  to  the  purpose.  He 
might  as  well  have  referred  to  Mr.  Belsham's  hair,  or 
the  rotundity  of  his  person,  as  presumj^tive  evidence 
against  his  opinion  about  Sunday;  nay,  he  might,  by 

6 


68  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

this  kind  of  logic,  assail  with  equal  success  the  philos- 
ophies of  Newton  and  Locke,  who  were  as  much  So- 
cinians  as  Mr.  Belsham  was. 

Dr.  Chalmers,  a  still  more  famous  minister  than  Dr. 
Wardlaw,  treats  of  the  Sabbath  in  three  of  his  Congre- 
gational Sermons,  vol.  ii,  p.  252  et  seq.  Here,  not  a 
word  "of  every  day  alike"  is  to  be  found!  "But,"  it 
may  be  suggested,  "he  wrote,  also,  Lectures  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Eomans.  What  says  he  fAere  .^  Look  at 
Lecture  95,  vol.  iv,  p.  329,  and  you  will  see  that  the 
bearing  of  the  passage  upon  the  Lord's  day  is  com- 
pletely ignored." 

Mr.  Cox  proceeds  to  state  that  there  was  published 
in  Scotland  a  Cyclopaedia,  conducted  by  biblical  scholars 
of  far  higher  rank  than  any  who  had  previously  con- 
tributed to  such  a  work,  in  which  the  passage  under 
consideration  was  discussed,  but  that  in  an  abridged 
edition  by  another  "  Glasgow  minister!"  it  was  omitted. 

"About  the  same  time,  a  biblical  Cyclopaedia  was 
published  by  a  fifth  Glasgow  minister,  Dr.  John  Eadie. 
There  is,  of  course,  an  article  on  the  Sabbath;  and  that 
article  contains  a  classified  list  of  references  to  Scrip- 
ture texts  bearing  upon  the  subject.  But,  according  to 
custom,  the  passage  in  Eomans  xiv  is  not  referred  to, 
either  there  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  article;  nor  is 
mention  made  of  certain  other  texts,  which  will  be  no- 
ticed below.  This  omission,  in  a  formal  array  of  refer- 
ences^ of  the  most  important  text  of  all,  is  quite  inde- 
fensible; even  though  the  writer  has  provided  himself 
with  a  reply  to  the  charge  o^ positive  misrepresentation, 
by  introducing  his  list  as  one  containing  references  only 
to  texts  which  '  are  among  the  leading  authorities  of  the 
Bible,  respecting  the  Sabbath  and  its  proper  observ- 
ance. ' " 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  59 

There  is  a  line  in  Young's  Night  Thoughts,  which 
says, 

"Truth  never  was  indebted  to  a  lie." 

And  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  striking  disen- 
genuousness  of  this  special  pleading  is  not  a  whit  better 
calculated  than  a  "  lie"  to  serve  her  cause. 

Mr.  Cox  goes  on  to  quote  other  instances  in  which 
the  same  process  of  suppressing  these  important  texts 
is  pursued;  but  the  reader  is,  doubtless,  by  this  time 
satisfied  that  we  have  brought  forward  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  show  the  utter  abhorrence  Sabbatarian  writers 
have  to  grapple  with  these  texts;  a  silence  which  con- 
fesses that  they  involve  a  complete  reply  to  all  their 
arguments,  and  a  humiliating  admission  of  inability  to 
prove  the  fourth  commandment  obligatory. 


60  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 


CHAPTEE  VIIL 

The  Primitive  Christians. 

The  primitive  Christians,  to  some  extent,  observed 
both  the  Jewish  Sabbath  and  the  first  da}^  of  the  week; 
the  latter  as  a  festival  day  and  a  day  of  rejoicing.  It 
was  the  observance  of  the  former  that,  as  we  have  seen, 
St.  Paul  in  several  places  condemns,  particularly  the 
attaching  of  any  superstitious  importance  to  the  sev- 
enth, or  to  the  first  day,  in  preference  to  any  other  day. 

We  must,  however,  be  careful  to  note  that  there  was 
not,  among  the  early  Christians,  any  idea  of  the  trans- 
ference of  the  duties  enjoined  by  the  fourth  command- 
ment from  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday. 

In  the  language  of  Neander,  "  All  speculations  were 
abolished  at  the  resurrection."  "  The  Christian  wor- 
ship claiming  for  itself  the  entire  life,  and  flowing  from 
a  conversation  in  Heaven  that  depended  not  on  the 
elements  of  the  world,  was  no  longer  to  be  confined  ex- 
clusively to  any  particular  place  or  time.  In  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  law  by  the  New  Testament,  ^.  e.  the  perfect 
sanctification  of  the  whole  life,  in  which  every  day  alike 
is  consecrated  to  God,  the  Old  Testament  law  of  the 
Sabbath  must  find  its  repeal.  Kot  barely  the  observ- 
ance of  Jewish  feasts,  but  all  forms  and  modes  of  par- 
ticularizing the  Christian  life,  by  an  exclusive  reference 
to  certain  times,  are  rej^resented  by  the  Apostle  Paul 
as  a  Jewish  practice,  a  bondage  under  the  elements  of 
the  world.     And  if,  notwithstanding,  men  did  from  the 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  61 

very  first  set  apart  certain  days,  with  which  they  as- 
sociated the  remembrance  of  the  great  facts  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  redemption,  and  to  which  the  whole  Chris- 
tian life  was  to  be  referred,  by  its  making  them  the 
central  points  of  Christian  fellowship,  this  was  not  by 
any  means  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  tendency 
and  intuition  of  Christianity.  It  was  only  a  condescen- 
sion to  human  weakness  from  the  height  of  pure  spirit- 
uality."* 

The  practice,  by  the  early  Christians,  of  observing 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  festival,  or  day  of  re- 
joicing, not  in  pursuance  of  any  divine  authority,  ac- 
cording to  Neander,  the  leading  authority,  but  as  a 
measure  of  propriety  and  expediency,  failed  to  receive 
the  sanction  of  the  civil  power  until  the  reign  of  Con- 
stantine. 

The  Eev.  Baden  Powell  observes,  as  to  the  decree 
of  this  emperor:  "The  celebrated  edict  of  Constantine 
has  been  differently  interpreted.  It  certainly  contains 
no  reference  to  the  Christian  religion,  or  its  ordinances. 
It  simply  enjoins  that,  'on  the  venerable  day  of  the 
sun,  the  magistrates,  and  citizens,  and  all  business,  shall 
be  at  rest'  {quiescant).  The  labors  of  agriculture,  how- 
ever, may  be  continued  as  the  season  may  require.  In 
the  same  year,  also,  he  made  a  decree  for  the  better 
regulation  of  the  heathen  sacrificial  ceremonies.  Also 
to  conciliate  both  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians,  he  up- 
held and  protected  them  in  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath, for  which  he  is  much  commended  by  Eusebius" 
(tit.  Const  iv,  18). 

*  Neander's  History  of  the  Church,  i,  406;  Id.  408-9,  Bohn's 
edition.  See,  also,  Neander's  History  of  Planting  of  Christian 
Church,  vol.  i,  p.  159 ;  ii,  p.  321,  Bohn's  ed. 

6* 


62  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

"  The  former  edict  relative  to  Sunday,  has  been  sup- 
posed to  have  been  called  for  by  the  great  and  incon- 
venient increase  of  festivals  among  the  Romans." — 
Powell,  229. 

The  spirit  of  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  was  entirely  different,  with  the  early  Christians, 
from  that  which  obtains  now.  It  was  kept  by  them  as 
a  "festival  of  joy,"  in  preparation  of  which  every  Wed- 
nesday and  Friday,  but  which  are  not  observed  now, 
were  consecrated  as  days  of  prayer  and  fasting,  in 
memory  of  Christ's  betrayal  and  passion  (Necmder,  i, 
408).  The  proof  that  Sunday  was  thus  acknowledged 
is  abundant,  from  the  writings  of  the  early  Christians, 
a  fact  to  which  writers  upon  this  question  have  not 
generally  ventured  to  call  the  attention  of  their  readers. 

For  example :  TertuUian,  two  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  says,  on  Sunday  we  give  ourselves  to  joy. 
^^ Diem  Solis  Icetitioe  indulgemus"  {Apol.,  ch.  16,  p.  688; 
works  fol.  Paris,  1580). 

St.  Barnabas,  fifty  years  after  Christ,  says :  "  We 
keep  the  eighth  day  with  gladness"  (Epist.  CathoL, 
§  ii,  ]).  244.  Amster.,  1646).  And  Ignatius,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Magnesians,  p.  35,  Amster.,  1646 :  "  We  observe 
the  Lord's  day,  banishing  everything  on  the  day  that 
has  the  least  tendency  to,  or  the  least  appearance  of 
sorrow  or  grief,  inasmuch  that  now  they  esteem  it  a 
sin  either  to  fast  or  kneel.''  Even  the  Montanists,  with 
which  sect  our  author  appears  to  sympathize,  "those 
rigid  observers  of  Fasts  and  Abstinences,  abstained 
from  fasting  on  this  most  glad  and  joyful  day."  Justin 
Martyr  declares  against  the  Judaical  observation  of 
even  "the  seventh  day,  although  both,  that  is,  the 
seventh  as  well  as  the  first,  were  observed  by  some  of 
the  early  Christians"  (JDial.  cum  Tryphon). 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  63 

It  is  thought  that  the  works  of  the  last-named 
writer  clearly  afford  the  proof,  that  it  was  more  than  a 
century  after  Christ  that  the  first  day  began  to  be 
generally  observed  among  the  Christians;  and  that  the 
day  was  kept  free  from  that  Judaizing  spirit  which 
afterwards  proved  a  source  of  corruption  and  danger 
to  the  Church  {Cox  on  Sabbath,  p.  282,  in  note.  See, 
also,  what  Justin  Martyr  says  in  his  ^'Apologies,"  &c., 
p.  274-6 ;  translated  by  the  Eev.  Temple  Chevallier, 
Cambridge,  1833). 

The  Eev.  Baden  Powell  has  some  learned  remarks 
in  this  connection,  which  we  cannot  omit  to  quote : 

"  The  writers  of  those  times  (that  is,  of  the  Fathers) 
often  speak  of  the  Lord's  day  in  conjunction  with  the 
Sabbath;  but  always  in  the  way  of  contrast,  and  as  ob- 
viously distinct  institutions.  .  .  But  though  a  certain 
kind  of  assimilation  between  the  two  institutions  was 
carried  farther  by  some  later  writers,  yet  neither  was  the 
observance  itself  ever  pushed  to  the  extent  which  has 
since  been  sometimes  contended  for;  nor  was  it  possi- 
ble for  that  confusion  of  ideas  between  the  two  insti- 
tutions to  arise  which  in  modern  times  has  extensively 
prevailed.  Indeed,  from  the  mere  fact  of  this  twofold 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  Lord's  day,  which 
prevailed  with  some  churches,  one  thing  is  perfectly 
manifest,  viz.,  that  there  could  not  have  existed  the 
slightest  notion  of  the  obligation  of  the  one  institution 
having  been  transferred  to  the  other,  as  imagined  by 
many  in  later  times.*     There  is,  again,  a  wide  differ- 

*  "  Yet  so  inveterate  has  the  absurd  idea  hecome  in  the  minds 
of  modern  divines,  that  even  so  acute  and  independent  a  writer  as 
Bishop  Warburton,  arguing,  too,  expressly  against  the  tSabbatists, 


64  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

ence  between  'keeping  a  day  holy'  and  simply  com- 
memorating an  event  upon  it;  yet  the  latter  easily 
degenerates  into  the  former  idea.  Down  to  the  later 
times  we  have  some  remains  of  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  in  the  solemnization  of  Saturday  as  the  eve 
or  vigil  of  the  Lord's  day." 

"  The  constant  reference  to  the  Old  Testament  law, 
on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  converts,  not  unnaturally  led 
to  the  disposition  to  find  in  it  at  least  some  sort  of  alle- 
gorical application  to  the  Gentiles.  Thus,  guided  pos- 
sibly by  the  figurative  language  of  the  Apostle  (Heb. 
iv,  4),  and  the  fondness  for  what  they  termed  evangeliz- 
ing the  Old  Testament,  some  of  the  Fathers  adopted 
the  idea  of  a  metaphysical  interpretation  of  the  fourth 
commandment  (where,  of  course,  the  literal  sense  could 
not  apply),  in  the  case  of  Gentile  converts,  as  meaning 
the  perpetual  service  of  a  Christian  life,  preparatory^  to 
eternal  rest."* — PowelVs  Christianity,  &c.,  p.  160. 

The  early  Christian  writers  had  no  better  means  of 
interpreting  Scriptures  than  we  have.  Indeed,  when 
we  consider  the  concentration  of  various  minds  upon 


speaks  incidentally  of  '  a  change  in  the  day  having  been  made  by 
the  primitive  church'  {Div.  Leg.,  434,  note),  which  most  assuredly 
there  never  was,  nor  could  have  been,  except  by  divine  authority. ' ' 

*  "  Thus,  Justin  Martyr  {Dialog,  cum  Trypho.  229)  says  :  "  The 
new  law  obliges  us  to  keep  a  perpetual  Sabbath."  And  later,  to 
the  same  effect,  Augustin,  whose  opinions  approached  towards 
modern  Calvinism  (Ep.  119),  observes:  "Inter  omnia  decem 
prsecepta  solum  id  quod  de  Sabbato  positum  est  figurato  obser- 
vatum  prsecipitur."  Among  all  the  ten  comtnandm,ents,  that  alone 
respecting  the  Sabbath  is  to  be  observed  figuratively. 

Athanius,  also,  says:  "We  keep  no  Sabbaths,  as  the  ancients 
did ;  looking  for  an  eternal  Sabbath."    Quoted  by  Heylin,  ii,  183. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  65 

the  same  passages  of  Sacred  "Writ,  the  accumulation  of 
centuries  of  theological  lore,  the  aid  afforded  by  the 
press  in  giving  us  at  one  view,  as  it  were,  for  the  sake 
of  collation,  the  entire  text,  our  means  of  forming  a 
correct  judgment  as  to  Scripture  difficulties  are  better 
than  were  those  of  the  early  Christians. 

But,  with  respect  to  a  narrative  of  facts,  or  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  usages  of  the  early  Church,  as  handed  down 
by  the  fathers  and  primitive  writers,  we  do  not  see 
how  we  can  refuse  to  give  them  credence,  so  far  as 
the  facts  or  the  usage  are  presented  and  described,  as 
happening  or  existing  within  their  own  knowledge  and 
experience.  We,  therefore,  have  the  amplest  evidence 
that  they  did  not  regard  the  observance  of  the  first  as 
a  substitution  for  the  observance  of  the  seventh.  That 
many  who  kept  the  first  also  observed  the  seventh ;  that 
St.  Paul  taught  them  not  to  regard  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath ;  that  succeeding  writers^  in  succeeding  centuries, 
condemned  in  turn  that  which  was  cause  of  condemna- 
tion with  their  predecessors,  which  condemnation,  as 
we  have  seen,  they  followed  up  in  practice  by  rejoicing 
upon  their  festival  day  or  Sunday,  and  eschewing  wor- 
ship on  the  seventh  altogether. 

The  existence  of  a  day  of  rejoicing,  in  remembrance 
of  a  civil  event  in  the  history  of  our  own  country  and 
people,  will  occur  to  the  reader,  when,  before  the  Eevo- 
lution,  many  of  the  loyal  colonists  were  accustomed  to 
celebrate  the  birthday  of  their  reigning  j^i'ince,  whom 
they  chose  to  regard  as  the  fountain  of  power  and  the 
head  of  the  Church,  but  which  celebration  after  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  severance  of  the 
tie  which  bound  them  to  the  mother  country  ceased, 
and  another  day  was  kept,  but  not  substituted,  in  token 


QQ  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

of  the  birth  of  a  new  nation  and  of  deliverance  from 
an  order  of  things  which  had  forever  passed  away.* 

*  "  Wherever  the  cessation  of  the  Law  is  spoken  of,  it  is  as  a 
whole,  without  reference  to  any  destinction  of  moral  or  ceremo- 
nial, letter  or  spirit.  "We  find  no  such  qualification  as  that  '  the 
Law,  as  being  of  Moses,  was  abrogated,  yet,  as  the  law  of  the 
spirit,  still  binding,'  as  some  have  represented  it.  The  whole 
tenor  of  the  argument  and  language  of  St.  Paul  is  utterly  opposed 
to  any  such  idea.  It  was  an  entire  system  which  passed  away,  to 
give  place  to  a  new  one  based  on  a  different  ground.^ ^ — Powell,  p. 
141. 


THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION.  67 


CHAPTEK   IX. 

The  Puritan  "Sabbath." 

The  interpretation  which  had  been  grafted  by  the 
usage  of  the  fathers  upon  the  observance  of  the  early 
Christians  continued  to  be  held  in  respect  onward  during 
the  progress  of  centuries — no  one  thought  of  doubting 
that  which  time  had  so  long  sanctioned,  until  after  the 
period  of  the  Reformation,  when  the  public  mind  becom- 
ing affected  with  a  change  of  sentiment,  the  current  of 
religious  feeling  ran  violently  in  a  new  direction.  The 
cheerful  view  of  duty  which  man  owed  to  his  Creator 
in  the  aj^propriation  of  a  portion  of  the  week  to  his 
service  passed  into  one  of  gloom  and  asceticism.  The 
scene  shifted  from  the  bright  landscape  into  one  hung 
with  clouds  and  darkness.  The  New  Testament,  with 
all  its  cheering  inspirations  and  comfortable  hopes,  be- 
came of  less  account,  and  the  Old,  with  its  ceremonial 
law,  its  Jewish  sanctions,  its  terrible  retributions,  rose 
into  high  esteem.  Hallam  well  depicts  the  change: 
"  The  founders  of  the  English  Reformation,  after  abol- 
ishing most  of  the  festivals  kept  before  that  time,  had 
made  little  or  no  change  as  to  the  mode  of  observance  of 
those  they  retained.  Sundays  and  holidays  stood  much 
on  the  same  footing,  as  days  on  which  no  work,  except 
for  good  cause,  was  to  be  performed.  The  service  of  the 
church  was  to  be  attended,  and  any  lawful  amusement 
might  be  indulged   in.     A  just   distinction,   however. 


68  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

soon  grew  up.  An  industrious  people  could  spare  time 
for  very  few  holidays;  and  the  more  scrupulous  party, 
while  they  slighted  the  church  festivals  as  of  human 
appointment,  prescribed  a  stricter  observance  of  the 
Lord's  day.  But  it  was  not  till  about  1595,  that  they 
began  to  place  it  very  nearly  on  the  footing  of  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  interdicting  not  only  the  slightest 
action  of  worldly  business,  but  even  every  sort  of  pas- 
time and  recreation.  A  system  which  once  promulga- 
ted, soon  gained  ground,  as  suiting  their  atrabilious 
humor,  and  affording  a  new  theme  of  censure  on  the 
vices  of  the  great.*  Those  who  opposed  them,  on  the 
High  Church  side,  not  only  derided  the  extravagance 
of  the  Sabbatarians,  as  the  others  were  called,  but  pre- 
tended that  the  commandment  having  been  confined  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  modern  observance  of  the  first  day 
of  the  week  as  a  season  of  rest  and  devotion,  was  an 
ecclesiastical  institution,  and  in  no  degree  more  vener- 

*  The  first  of  these  Sabbatarians  was  a  Dr.  Bound,  whose  ser- 
mon was  suppressed  by  Whitgrift's  order.  But  some  years  before, 
one  of  Martin  Marprelate's  charges  against  Aylmer  was  for  play- 
ing at  bowls  on  Sundays ;  and  the  word  Sabbath,  as  applied  to 
that  d&j,  may  be  found  occasionally  under  Elizabeth,  though  by 
no  means  so  usual  as  afterwards ;  it  is  even  recognized  in  the 
Homilies,  One  of  Bound's  recommendations  was  that  no  feasts 
should  be  given  on  that  day,  "  except  by  lords,  knights,  and  per- 
sons of  quality ;"  for  which  unlucky  reservation  his  adversaries 
did  not  forget  to  deride  him.  {Fuller's  Church  History,  p.  227.) 
This  writer  described,  in  his  quaint  style,  the  abstinence  from 
sports  produced  by  this  new  doctrine,  and  remarks  what  a  slight 
acquaintance  with  human  nature  would  have  taught  Archbishop 
Laud,  that  "the  more  liberty  people  were  oflEered,  the  less  they 
used  it;  it  was  sport  for  them  to  refrain  from  sport."  (See  also, 
Collier,  643;  Neal,  386;  Siri/j^e's  Whitgrift,  530;  May's  Hist.  Par- 
liament, 16.) 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  69 

able  than  that  of  the  other  festivals,  or  the  season  of 
Lent,  which  the  Puritans  stubbornly  despised."  .  .  .  . 
"  A  circumstance  that  occurred  in  the  session  of  1621, 
will  serve  to  prove  their  fanatical  violence,"  (that  of 
the  House  of  Commons).  "A  bill  having  been  brought 
in  '  for  the  better  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  usually 
called  Sunday,'  one  Mr.  Shepherd,  sneering  at  the  Pu- 
ritans, remarked  that,  as  Saturday  was  dies  Sabbati, 
this  might  be  entitled  a  bill  for  the  observance  of  Satur- 
day, commonly  called  Sunday.  This  witticism  brought 
on  his  head  the  wrath  of  that  dangerous  assembly.  He 
was  reprimanded  on  his  knees,  expelled  the  house,  and, 
when  he  saw  what  befell  poor  Floyd,  might  deem  him- 
self cheaply  saved  from  their  fangs  with  no  w^orse 
chastisement.  Yet  when  the  Uj^per  House  sent  down 
their  bill,  with  'the  Lord's  day'  substituted  for  'the 
Sabbath,'  observing,  'that  people  do  now  much  incline 
to  words  of  Judaism,'  the  Commons  took  no  exception. 
The  use  of  the  word  Sabbath  instead  of  Sunday,  be- 
came, in  that  age,  a  distinctive  mark  of  the  Puritan 
party." — Constitutional  Hist.  Bng.,  I,  pp.  388,  et  seq. 
Boston,  1865.* 

*  The  Episcopal  Church,  notwithstanding  it  has  incorporated 
into  its  service  the  use  of  the  Commandments,  with  a  praj^er  for 
their  observance,  holds  to  a  more  Scriptural  view  of  the  Fourth 
Commandment  than  is  laid  down  in  the  Westminster  Confession. 
We  are  aware,  however,  that  each  "  receives  its  appropriate 
Christian  sense,  and  the  meaning  annexed  to  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, and  the  duty  stated  to  be  inculcated  in  it,  is  simply 
this  :  '  To  serve  God  truly  all  the  days  of  my  life,' — not  one  day 
in  seven,  but  every  day."  We  are  also  aware,  that  "  the  existing 
authorized  formularies  were  designed  to  be  comprehensive,  and  are 
characterized  on  these  points  by  the  omission  of  topics  in  dispute. 
While  the  Decalogue  was  inserted  to  satisfy  one  party,  the  Chris- 
tian exposition  of  it,  in  which  its  Judaical  tendency  is  neutralized, 

7 


70  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

We  must  take  occasion  to  remark  upon  an  admission 
which,  though  small  in  compass,  covers  the  entire 
ground  under  discussion  and  yields  it  in  our  favor,  and 
we  do  it  with  the  more  pleasure  because  from  the  pen 
of  one  whose  authority  the  author  of  Sabbatismos  should 
feel  inclined  to  respect,  happening  to  belong  with  him 
to  the  same  branch  of  the  same  religious  denomination, 
and  professing  to  hold  in  all  their  strictness  the  same 
views  of  this  interesting  question. 

The  Eev.  Dr.  Coleman,  who  is  regarded  as  authority, 
says : 

"  But  it  is  not  a  little  singular  that  the  Church, 
though  right  in  theory  and  to  some  extent  in  practice, 
continued  through  successive  centuries  down  to  the 
age  of  the  Eeformation,  and  even  beyond  it,  wrong  in 
principle  in  that  she  disowned  the  sanctity  of  the  law 
of  the  Sabbath.  In  other  words,  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Sabbath  neither  was  recognized  by  the  ancient 
fathers  nor  by  Luther  or  Calvin  or  the  early  Eeformers. 
It  was  reserved  for  the  Puritans,^^  &c.    Ancient  Christi- 

must  be  assented  to  by  all."  {Powell^  170.)  The  Sabbath  is  not 
once  mentioned  in  the  Prayer-Book.  There  is,  however,  an  in- 
congruity, to  the  perception  of  which,  long  familiarity  has  dead- 
ened the  mind.  The  hoar  of  antiquity  has  toned  down  that, 
which  in  its  newness,  must  have  seemed  harsh  and  repulsive ;  for 
what  is  really  more  inconsistent  than  to  ask,  without  qualification, 
that  the  heart  may  be  inclined  to  keep  the  seventh  day,  or  Jewish 
Sabbath,  when  by  that  church  it  never  has  been  kept,  but  is,  and 
has  always  been,  utterly  repudiated.  Nothing  is  more  distressing 
than  the  existence  of  a  tarnish,  or  a  blemish,  which  we  know  it  is 
entirely  possible  to  remove.  A  defect  so  obvious  in  a  service,  as 
to  excite  the  observation  of  the  merest  neophyte,  and  to  place  any 
sensible  explanation  beyond  the  ability  of  the  most  astute,  much 
retards  the  progress  of  religion  and  truth.  We  regret  that  the 
attention  of  the  body  which  has  the  authority  to  make  the  change, 
has  not  long  since  been  directed  to  the  necessity  in  this  regard. 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  71 

ayiiiy  Exemplified.  By  Eev.  Lyman  Coleman,  p.  532. 
Pliiladelphia,  1856. 

We  feel  not  a  little  grateful  that  we  are  in  such  good 
company  as  that  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and  of  Luther; 
and  particularly  of  Calvin.  There  is  a  talismanic  in- 
fluence connected  with  the  name  of  the  latter  great 
Eeformer,  which  we  shall  be  pardoned  for  regarding, 
however  dangerous  the  reliance  upon  any  mere  human 
authority  in  a  question  of  conscience,  and  which,  from 
the  lights  before  him,  every  one  must  decide  for  him- 
self 

We  presume  the"  writer  of  Christianity  Exemplified 
meant  to  say  that  the  Church  was  wrong  in  theory  as 
well  as  principle,  for  we  cannot  perceive  how  she  could 
be  right  in  theory  had  she  been  wrong  in  principle. 
And  we  are  now,  for  the  first  time,  taught  that  the 
ancient  fathers,  those  who  lived  so  near  the  period  of 
the  apostles,  and  who  had,  if  any,  the  right  to  speak 
with  confidence  upon  the  subject,  were  wrong,  as  were 
Luther  and  Calvin;  and  all  having  failed  to  discover 
that  the  observance  of  Suadaj^  was  not  by  divine  au- 
thority, but  merely  by  that  of  the  Church,  it  was  due 
to  the  Puritans  (after  mankind  had  groped  in  darkness 
and  been  immersed  in  error  for  fifteen  centuries),  that 
the  one  was  discovered  and  the  other  dissipated.  Sur- 
prising discovery ;  wonderful  Puritans  ! 

What  a  consolation,  that  the  text  of  Scripture  re- 
mains through  all  time  the  protection  of  the  innocent 
and  of  the  oppressed,  an  everlasting  wall  of  defence 
against  heresy,  superstition,  tyranny,  and  error;  that 
we  have  but  to  display  the  great  Apostle's  warning 
words  of  earnest  exliortation  to  the  Romans,  the  Co- 
lossians,  and  Galatians,  when  the  eye  of  the  bigot  is 
averted,  and  his  confidence  abashed. 


72  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION, 


CHAPTEE  X. 

The  testimony  of  the  Keformers  and  others  of  more  recent  times 
against  the  doctrine  held  by  the  author  of  "  Sabbatismos"  and 
his  adherents. 

That  the  Sabbath  was  exclusively  a  Jewish  institu- 
tion, and  is  not  binding  upon  us,  is  maintained  by 
an  array  of  authorities  which,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
sacred  right  of  private  judgment,  we  dare  not  say 
should  silence  further  controversy,  but  which  we  do 
say  is  entitled  to  a  candid  consideration.  "We  have  in 
support  of  this  view  the  testimony  of  Luther,  Calvin, 
Melancthon,  Beza,  Bucer,  Zuinglius,  Cranmer,  Eidley, 
Frith,  Knox,  Chillingworth,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Baxter, 
Barrow,  Milton,  Barclay,  Limborch,  and,  in  more  re- 
cent times,  of  Paley,  Arnold  of  Eugby, Whately,  Eobert- 
son  of  Brighton.  In  America,  that  of  Bishop  White, 
the  Eev.  Dr.  James  W.  Alexander,  &c.,  &c. 

In  presenting  the  convictions  of  some  of  those  we 
have  named,  and  whose  opinions  have  already  to  some 
extent  been  adduced,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  com- 
mient  upon  the  Doctor's  "  vindication"  of  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, and  others.  For  in  his  appendix  he  endeavors  to 
repel  the  "c/mr^e"  that  these  regarded  the  "Sabbath" 
of  the  fourth  commandment  as  a  purely  Jewish  ordi- 
nance and  not  binding  upon  Christians. 

The  candid  reader  will,  in  the  course  of  our  remarks, 
be  able  to  decide  how  far  the  Doctor  in  his  "vindica- 
tion" is  successful. 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  73 


LUTIIER. 

Luther's  language  is  very  strong:  "As  for  the  Sab- 
bath, or  Sunday,  there  is  no  necessity  for  its  observ- 
ance; and  if  we  do  so,  the  reason  ought  to  be,  not  be- 
cause Moses  commanded  it,  but  because  nature  likewise 
teaches  us  to  give  ourselves,  from  time  to  time,  a  day 
of  rest,  in  order  that  man  and  beast  may  recruit  their 
strength,  and  that  we  may  go  and  hear  the  word  of 
God  preached."  Works,  11,  16;  quoted  in  HazlitVs 
Translation  of  Michelefs  Life  of  Luther,  p.  271.  London, 
1846. 

The  following  is  a  translation  of  the  same  passage 
by  another  hand:  .  .  .  "  As  regards  the  Sabbath,  or 
Sunday,  there  is  no  necessity  for  keeping  it;  but  if  we 
do,  it  ought  to  be  not  on  account  of  Moses'  command- 
ment, but  because  nature  teaches  us,  from  time  to  time, 
to  take  a  day  of  rest,  in  order  that  men  and  animals 
may  recruit  their  strength,  and  that  we  may  attend 
the  preaching  of  God's  word."  Michelefs  Life  of  Luther. 
Translated  by  G.  H.  Smith,  F.G.S.  Whittaker  &  Co., 
London. 

Again,  Luther  says  :  "  The  Gospel  regardeth  neither 
Sabbath  nor  holidays,  because  they  endured  but  for  a 
time,  and  were  ordained  for  the  sake  of  preaching,  to 
the  end  God's  word  might  be  tended  and  taught."  Col- 
loquia  Mensalia,  or  Table  Talk.  Translated  by  Captain 
Henry  Bell,  chap,  xxxi,  p.  357.     London,  1652. 

Still  further:  ''Keep  the  Sabbath  holy  for  its  use 
both  to  body  and  soul;  but  if  anywhere  the  day  is 
made  holy  for  the  mere  day's  sake — if  anj'where  one 
sets  up  its  observance  upon  a  Jewish  foundation — then, 
I  order  you  to  work  on  it,  to  ride  on  it,  to  dance  on  it^ 
to  feast  on  it,  to  do  anj^thing  that  shall  remove  this 

7* 


74  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

encroachment  on  the  Christian  spirit  and  liberty." 
Christian  Sects  in  the  Nineteenth  Century^  p.  20.  London, 
1846.    (See  Cox,  p.  121.) 

And  this  last  passage,  the  Doctor  exclaims  with  earn- 
estness, is  "  quoted  in  the  nineteenth  century  to  sustain 
a  breach  of  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  and  of  God;" 
complaining  at  the  same  time  that  no  authority  is 
given  for  the  quotation,  a  deficiency  which  we  now 
supply.  Much  has  been  written  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury which  is  not  the  less  w^orth  citing  in  the  nine- 
teenth, if  while  pertinent  it  shall  vindicate  Christian 
liberty  and  expose  that  spirit  of  Judaism  which  it  is 
sought  to  countenance,  and  that  the  progress  of  time 
has  so  much  ameliorated  although  not  as  yet  sup- 
pressed. 

There  is  an  authority  much  older  than  that  of  Lu- 
ther, though  none  the  worse  for  its  antiquity,  and  just 
as  applicable  in  this,  the  nineteenth  century,  as  were 
the  words  of  Luther  in  the  sixteenth,  for  the  language 
was  directed  to  the  same  end:  "Let  no  man  therefore 
judge  you,  in  meat  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy 
day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days:  which 
are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come;  but  the  body  is  of 
Christ."    Colossians  ii,  15,  16. 

Again.  The  Doctor  remarks,  "  Does  any  one  of  the 
one  hundred  and  forty-three  clergymen  who  signed 
the  letter  to  the  Mayor,  &c.,  advocate  the  ascetic  and 
gloomy  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  ?"  They 
may  not;  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Doctor  does, 
and  not  in  the  way  that  Luther  recommends;  for  he 
who  for  six  days  of  the  week  has  toiled  in  the  close 
and  impure  atmosphere  of  the  factory,  or  pursued  his 
calling  within  sight  of  brick  walls,  "  is  but  recruiting 
his  strength"  if  he  does,  as  the  Doctor  says,  even  "  rush 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  75 

out  to  the  country  and  worship  nature."  But  how  lit- 
tle faith  in  the  toiling  thousands  (who  desire  a  change 
of  scene  and  place,  and  who  may  not  lose  a  day  in  the 
pursuit  of  honest  industry  without  the  curtailment  of 
some  necessity,  not  luxury),  does  he  exhibit,  when  in 
such  sweeping  and  unguarded  language  he  asserts  that 
all  such  who  "rush  into  the  country"  do  it  but  "to 
worship  in  the  grog-shops,  at  the  shanties  by  the  way, 
promoting  employment  by  the  policemen  and  magis- 
trates?" We  are  pleased  to  say  that  our  faith  in  the 
sons  and  daughters  of  toil  is  greater  than  the  Doctor's, 
and  fear  that  those  who  wish  to  worship  nature  in  the 
mode  he  indicates  would  in  any  event  seek  a  gratifica- 
tion of  their  longings  at  shrines  nearer  at  hand. 

Luther  says,  "As  for  the  Sabbath,  or  Sunday,  there  is 
no  necessity  for  its  observance,"  &c. ;  upon  which  the 
Doctor  remarks.  What  does  Luther  mean  ?  We  reply, 
it  is  plain  enough  what  he  means  ;  but  the  Doctor  re- 
plies, that  he  means  "what  all  evangelical  men,  clergy 
and  laity,  mean, — that  the  Sabbaths  of  the  Jews  (of 
which  five  are  mentioned  in  Leviticus  xxiii.,  which  are 
called  Sabbaths"),  &c.,  are  the  Sabbaths  to  which  Lu- 
ther refers.  We  recollect  but  one  parallel  to  this,  and 
that,  we  fear,  is  fiction,  where  a  judge,  in  a  celebrated 
case,  jiot  that  of  Specht  versus  Commonwealth,  which 
the  Doctor  cites,  insisted  that  the  name  of  the  witness 
was  not  as  witness  had  distinctly  pronounced  it,  but  as 
his  Honor  had  written  it,  and  so  it  should  remain.  We 
take  no  particular  exception  to  this  contradiction  ;  but 
we  do  to  the  assertion  that  the  Doctor's  interpretation 
is  "  that  of  all  evangelical  clergymen,"  &c. 

He  further  tells  us  that  the  moral  law  of  the  third 
commandment,  has,  in  Levit.  xxiv.  16,  a  death  penalty 
appended  (p.  157),  and  are  asked,  whether  in  abandon- 


76  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

ing  this  "Jewish  foundation,"  we  also  abandon  the 
moral  law  of  the  third  commandment?  We  reply, 
that  we  have  never  heard  before,  that  the  penalty  of 
the  law  was  its  foundation.  Were  it  so,  we  apprehend 
criminal  legislation  would  be  as  impracticable  and  use- 
less as  the  attempt  to  rear  a  superstructure  before  that 
was  provided  on  which,  by  the  law  of  nature,  the 
superstructure  should  rest. 

Much  effort  has  been  made  by  him  to  prove  that  "  the 
fourth  precept  of  the  moral  law  does  not  bless  the  sev- 
enth day,  and  hallow  it,  but  the  tSabbath  day"  (p. 
186).  We  have  offered  our  comments  on  this  else- 
where, but  we  thank  the  Doctor  for  quoting  Luther 
in  our  aid,  when,  using  Luther's  words,  he  says,  "  That 
after  the  fall,  God  sanctified  the  seventh  day,"  &c. 
(p.  189). 

In  conclusion,  we  observe  that  the  opinions  of  Lutlier 
upon  the  Sabbath  are  directly  opposed  to  those  of  the 
Doctor,  and  we  could  adduce  page  upon  page  in  sup- 
port of  this  allegation;  we  shall  be  obliged,  however, 
to  content  ourselves  with  but  one,  and  that  from  his 
larger  Catechism.  We  do  this  because  it  contains  a 
distinct  summary  of  his  views,  and  is,  at  the  same 
time,  an  answer  to  the  Doctor's  assertion,  that  Luther 
meant,  when  he  used  the  words  Sabbath  or  Sunday^ 
"  not  what  all  evangelical  men  mean,'' — the  five  Levitical 
Sabbaths, — but  that  he  meant  our  present  Sunday,  or 
in  other  words,  if  it  is  a  truism,  the  Doctor  compels  us 
to  use  it,  that  Luther  meant  what  he  says  he  meant ! 

This  is  what  Luther  says,  "  God  set  aj)art  the  seventh 
day,  and  appointed  it  to  be  observed,  and  commanded 
that  it  should  be  considered  holy  above  all  others ;  and 
this  command,  as  far  as  the  outward  observance  is  con- 
cerned, was  given  to  the  Jews  alone,  that  they  should 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  77 

abstain  from  hard  labor,  and  rest,  in  order  that  both 
man  and  beast  might  be  refreshed,  and  not  be  worn 
out  by  constant  work.  Therefore,  this  commandment, 
literally  understood,  does  not  apply  to  us  Christians ; 
for  it  is  entirely  outward,  like  other  ordinances  of  the 
Old  Testament,  bound  to  modes  and  persons,  and  times 
and  customs,  all  of  which  are  now  left  free  by  Christ. 
But,  in  order  that  the  simple  may  obtain  a  Christian 
view  of  that  which  God  requires  of  us  in  this  com- 
mandment, observe  that  we  keep  a  festival,  not  for  the 
sake  of  intelligent  and  advanced  Christians,  for  those 
have  no  need  of  it;  but  first, /or  the  sake  of  the  body, 
because  JN^ature  teaches  us  that  the  working-classes, 
servants  and  maids,  who  have  spent  the  whole  week  in 
their  work  and  occupation,  absolutely  require  a  day 
in  which  they  can  leave  off  work  and  refresh  them- 
selves; and  chiefly,  in  order  that  men  may,  on  such  a 
day  of  rest,  have  time  and  opportunity,  such  as  they 
could  not  otherwise  have,  to  attend  to  the  worship  of 
God,  that  so  they  may  come  in  crowds  to  hear  the 
word  of  God,  and  practise  it,  to  praise  God,  and  sing 
and  i^ray.  But  this  is  not  bound  to  any  particular  time, 
as  with  the  Jews,  so  that  it  must  be  this  day  or  that ; 
for  no  day  is  in  itself  better  than  any  other;  but  it 
ought  to  be  performed  daily,  only,  because  this  would 
be  impossible  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  we  must  at 
least  devote  one  day  to  this  purpose.  And  because 
Sunday  has  been  appointed  from  the  earliest  times,  we 
ought  to  keep  to  this  arrangement,  that  all  things  may 
be  done  in  harmony  and  order,  and  no  confusion  be 
caused  by  unnecessary  novelties."  Hengstenberg  on  the 
Lord's  Bay,  translated  by  James  Martin.  London,  1853, 
p.  63.     Quoted  by  Cox,  p.  503. 

The  Eev.  Baden  Powell  has  the  following  pertinent 


78  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

observations  on  the  freedom  of  Luther  as  well  as  Cal- 
vin from  sabbatical  formalism : 

"  But  against  all  tenets  of  a  legal  and  sabbatical  for- 
malism, Luther,  with  his  accustomed  masterly  grasp  of 
the  breadth  and  depth  of  evangelical  principles,  most 
strenuously  contended,  as  also,  still  more  remarkablj^ 
(considering  his  princij^les),  did  Calvin  (^Instit.,  lib.  ii. 
chap.  8,  §  28-34),  especially  denouncing  the  notion  of 
the  moral  obligation  of  the  Sabbath,  as  one  of  the  follies 
of  false  prophets  Qiugoe  ;pseudo-prophetaru7ii) ;  and  more 
forcibly  still  in  his  French  version,  as  mensonges  des 
faux  docteurs, — the  lies  of  false  teachers. 

"Luther  claimed  a  freedom  to  retain  or  dispense  with 
the  observance  of  days  just  as  it  might  be  found  to 
tend  to  spiritual  edification,  or  to  superstition  ;  and  in 
this  strenuous  repudiation  of  Judaical  subjections  in 
general,  and  sabbatism  in  particular,  he  and  Calvin 
were  supported  by  the  most  eminent  Eeformers  on  the 
continent,  both  among  the  Calvinists,  as  Beza,  and  the 
Lutherans,  as  Chemnitz  and  Bucer.  Similar  views 
were  professed  by  several  of  the  English  Eeformers,  as 
Tyndal  and  others ;  and  at  a  later  period  by  the  greater 
minds  of  the  Eeformed  school:  by  Grotius  {De  Veiit., 
chap.  5)  and  Limborch;  as  by  Milton  (^Christian  Doc- 
trine, 128,  Ed.  Sumner),  Prideaux,  Heylin,  and  others 
in  England."    PowelVs  Christianity ,  &c.,  p.  167. 

In  the  vindication  of  Melancthon  and  Cranmer,  and 
which  forms  a  part  of  the  Doctor's  apjoendix  (p.  195), 
he  ventures  to  call  The  Press  to  account  for  arraying 
Melancthon  against  the  Sabbath — because  the  editor, 
in  using  the  precise  words  of  that  Eeformer,  does  not 
happen  to  state  whence  they  were  derived — whereupon 
the  Doctor  remarks,  "  here  is  unfairness  again." 

Our  author  is  too  much  inclined  to  presume  (an  error 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  79 

into  which  so  old  a  controversialist  should  less  fre- 
quentl}'  fall)  that  the  object  of  his  opponent  in  citing  a 
passage  from  the  pages  of  any  eminent  authority,  who 
differs  from  the  Doctor  in  his  views,  is  to  array  such 
authority  against  all  Christian  observances  whatever. 
This  we  do  not  understand  to  be  the  purpose,  but  on 
the  contrary  to  show  that  w^hen  a  clergyman,  conspic- 
uous for  godliness,  learning,  and  abilities,  of  position 
unassailable,  and  who  from  every  motive  that  could 
properly  impel  would  be  inclined  to  hold  the  strictest 
notions  of  Sabbath  sanctification,  is  at  the  same  time 
unwilling  to  yield  his  prejudices  to  such  compliance, 
his  testimony,  above  that  of  all  others,  deserves  to  be 
received  with  the  utmost  readiness  and  cordiality. 

The  passage  from  Melancthon  which  The  Press  offers, 
and  it  might  have  produced  much  that  would  have  been 
even  more  to  the  purpose,  is  from  the  celebrated  Augs- 
burg Confession,  which  that  great  Eeformer  framed,  and 
in  which  Luther  also  had  a  part.  This  Confession,  in 
almost  the  next  sentence  after  his  condemnation  of  The 
Press  for  having  cited,  the  Doctor  cites  himself.  We  are, 
therefore,  forced  to  one  of  two  conclusions, — either  that 
he  had  not  read  the  whole  of  what  Melancthon  says, 
or,  knowing  whence  the  extract  was  derived,  did  not 
choose  to  admit  his  knowledge  ;  and  of  these  inferences 
we  prefer  the  former. 

In  this  Confession  we  have,  on  the  one  part,  Melauc- 
thon's  positive  convictions,  proclaimed  with  delibera- 
tion, under  circumstances  the  most  solemn,  and  in  a 
document  whose  promulgation  illumined,  as  it  were, 
his  age,  and  threw  a  glory  around  his  name,  and 
upon  the  other  we  have  sentences  torn  plainly  from 
their  context,  by  which  it  is  attemjDted  to  be  proved 
that  Melancthon  held  opinions  which  were  in  unison 


80  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

with  those  of  our  author.  The  eminent  Eeformer,  as 
dealt  with  by  the  Doctor,  is  therefore  open  to  the 
charge  of  vacillation;  but  these  selections,  if  given  in 
their  integrity,  would  clear  him  of  such  suspicion. 

One  fact  cannot  be  questioned,  that  prominent  writ- 
ers on  the  "Sabbath"  always  speak  of  the  Eeformers 
as  entertaining  the  belief  that  as  Jewish  and  ceremonial 
it  came  to  a  close  with  the  Mosaic  dispensation  gen- 
erally, and  Dr.  Hetberington,  a  celebrated  advocate  of 
the  same  notion  held  by  our  author,  opposes,  in  his 
Christian  Sabbath  Considered  in  its  Various  Aspects  (Ed- 
inburgh, 1850),  the  theory  of  the  Eeformers  upon  the 
ground  that  (m  his  opinion,  of  course)  they  held  an  er- 
roneous doctrine. 

The  Eev.  Baden  Powell  gives  the  following  brief 
history  of  Melancthon's  Formulary,  and  also  some  ex- 
tracts from  the  Heidelberg  and  other  catechisms,  on  the 
subject  of  the  fourth  commandment,  which  we  present 
in  the  same  connection  : 

"As  indicative  of  the  state  of  opinions  among  the 
great  branches  of  the  Eeformed  Church,  the  celebrated 
Augsburg  Confession  stands  preeminent.  In  reference 
to  our  present  subject,  it  first  makes  some  allusion  to 
the  controversies  which  had  existed,  bearing  on  the 
extent  of  the  authority  of  the  Church  to  change  ordi- 
nances." 

Afterwards,  speaking  of  points  ordained  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church,  this  Formulary  proceeds  : 

"Such  cases  are,  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day, 
Easter,  Pentecost,  and  other  like  festivals  and  rites. 
For  those  who  judge  that  by  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  instead  of  the  Sabbath  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  day  was  instituted  as  essential,  are  greatly  in 
error. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  81 

"The  Scripture  has  abrogated  the  Sabbath,  wliich 
teaches  that  all  Mosaic  ceremonies,  after  the  revelation 
of  the  Gospel,  may  be  omitted.  And  yet,  since  it  was 
necessary  to  appoint  a  certain  day,  that  the  people 
might  know  when  to  assemble  together,  it  appears 
that  the  Church  appointed  for  that  end  the  Lord's 
day,  which  seems,  on  this  ground,  to  have  been  the 
more  acceptable,  that  men  might  have  an  example  of 
Christian  libert}^,  and  might  know  that  the  observance 
neither  of  the  Sabbath  nor  of  any  other  day  is  neces- 
sary. There  have  been  great  disputes  on  the  change 
of  the  law;  on  the  ceremonies  of  the  new  law;  on  the 
change  of  the  Sabbath;  all  which  have  arisen  from  the 
false  persuasion  that  the  worship  of  the  Church  ought 
to  be  similar  to  the  Levitical"  {Confessio  Augustcma, 
1531,  §vii;  Sylloge  Confessionum,  p.  156,  Ed.  Oxford, 
1827). 

]S"otwithstanding  (says  Powell)  the  plainness  with 
which  all  idea  of  sabbatism  is  here  repudiated,  it  yet 
cannot  but  be  noticed  how  much  the  prevailing  con- 
fusion of  thought  remains  in  the  reasons  and  grounds 
assigned;  that  the  Mosaic  ceremonies  "maybe  omit- 
ted" when  the  question  is,  what  should  enforce  them? 
or  how  the  Gentiles  could  have  anything  to  do  with 
them  ?  or  could  have  any  ground  for  imagining  that 
Christian  worship  ought  to  resemble  the  Levitical. 
The  real  fundamental  "false  persuasion,"  which  might 
have  been  referred  to,  is  that  of  not  seeing  the  distinc- 
tion between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity.  All  that 
is  here  said  might  well  apply  to  the  Jewish  converts. 

The  original  form  from  which  the  above  is  cited  was 
that  adhered  to  by  the  Lutherans.  But,  in  1540,  an 
altered  version  was  made  to  suit  the  views  of  certain 
other  parties.     In  this  version  the  passage  quoted  re- 

8 


82  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

mains  the  same,  with  the  exception  of  the  sentence  be- 
ginning, "  The  Scripture  has  abrogated,"  &c.,  which 
here  stands  thus:  "The  Scripture  allows  that  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath  may  now  be  a  matter  of  lib- 
erty; for  it  teaches  that  the  Mosaic  ceremonies,  after 
the  revelation  of  the  Gospel,  are  not  necessary;  and 
yet,"  &c,  {Sylloge  Confessionum,  p.  230),  an  assertion 
certainly  of  the  safest  nature. 

The  Palatine,  or  Heidelberg  Catechism  (1563),  after 
stating  "  the  Decalogue"  to  be  "  the  law  of  God,"  in 
answer  to  the  question,  "What  does  the  fourth  com- 
mandment enjoin  ?"  replies : 

"  First,  that  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the 
School  should  be  preserved;  that,  as  well  as  other 
times,  so  particularly  on  festival  days,  I  should  studi- 
ously attend  divine  assemblies;  should  diligently  hear 
the  Word  of  God ;  should  add  my  prayers  to  the  public 
prayers;  and,  according  to  my  ability,  should  con- 
tribute something  for  the  poor. 

"Lastly,  that  through  all  my  life  I  should  abstain 
from  wicked  actions;  yielding  to  the  Lord,  that,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  will  do  his  work  in  me ;  and  thus, 
that  I  may,  in  this  life,  begin  the  eternal  Sabbath." 
{Syl  Con,,  p.  388.) 

<'  The  Eacovian  Catechism,  after  quoting  the  fourth 
commandment,  puts  the  questions  following  : — 

<'  <  Q.  What  think  you  of  this  precept? 

"'A,  That  it  is  taken  away  under  the  New  Cove- 
nant, as  well  as  other  ceremonial  observations. 

"  '  Q.  Did  not  Christ  institute  that  we  should  cele- 
brate the  day  commonly  called  the  Lord's  day,  instead 
of  a  Sabbath  ? 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  83 

"  '  By  no  means;  since  the  Christion  religion,  as  it 
taketh  away  other  ceremonial  observations,  so  also  the 
difference  of  days.  (See  Col.  ii.  18.)  But,  forasmuch  as 
we  see  the  Lord's  day  to  be  of  old  celebrated  by  Chris- 
tians, we  permit  the  same  liberty  to  all  Christians.'  " 
(Ed.  Amsterdam,  1652,  p.  91.) 

It  is  here  remarkable  how,  even  in  the  freedom 
wdiich  this  Formulary  asserts,  there  still  lingers  the 
fundamental  misapprehension  of  dwelling  on  the  aboli- 
tion of  an  ordinance,  which,  to  the  Gentile,  never  was 
in  force,  or  of  introducing  the  Decalogue  at  all. 

The  French  Protestant  Catechism,  while  it  regards 
the  Decalogue  in  general  as  obligatory,  yet  makes  the 
fourth  commandment  peculiar^  and  as  not  tu  be  taken 
literally,  and  holds  that  the  ceremonial  part  of  it  is 
abolished  by  the  coming  of  Christ ;  that  it  is  typical  of 
spiritual  rest ;  yet  that  it  has  reference  to  the  observ- 
ance of  ecclesiastical  ordinances,  and  the  relief  of  ser- 
vants from  labor.  (See  La  Forme  des  Pritres  et  le  Cate- 
chisme,  &c.,  annexed  to  the  French  Testament.  Ed. 
Leyden,  1687.) 

A  similar  view  is  upheld  at  the  present  day  by  one 
of  the  most  able  French  Protestant  writers,  Athanase 
Coquerel,  who  maintains  that  there  is  "no  specific 
time — no  consecrated  day — assigned  in  the  Gospel." 
(^Christianity,  &c.,  p.  380;  transl.     London,  1847.) 

On  the  other  hand,  the  formal  expression  of  that  pri- 
mary confusion  of  ideas  which  has  so  peculiarly  beset 
the  whole  conception  of  the  divine  law  in  modern  the- 
ology, may  be  fully  traced  in  the  Helvetian  Confession, 
A.D.  1536. 

It  first  (§  xii.)  recognizes  the  natural  moral  law  writ- 


84  THE   SUNDAY  QUESTION. 

ten  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  then  the  divine  written 
law  in  the  two  tables  of  Moses;  and  this  is  distin- 
guished again  into  "the  moral  law  compreliended  in 
the  Decalogue,"  the  ceremonial,  and  the  judicial  or  po- 
litical. 

But  "  this  law  is  not  given  to  men  that  they  may  be 
justified  by  its  observance;  but  rather  by  its  indica- 
tions that  they  may  acknowledge  their  infirmity,  their 
sin,  their  condemnation,  and  thus  be  led  to  faith  in 
Christ.  .  .  .  Thus  far  the  law  is  abrogated,  that  it  no 
longer  condemns  us,  or  works  wrath  in  us. 

.  .  .  "We  know  that  the  scripture  of  the  law  is  use- 
ful, if  it  be  expounded  by  the  Gospel ;  thus  the  reading 
of  it  is  not  to  be  abolished."  (Sylloge  Confessionum,  pp. 
42,  43.) 

"  It  may  be  readily  understood  how  this  kind  of  dog- 
matizing prepared  the  way  for  the  deeper  subtleties 
and  Judaical  aberrations  and  enormities  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly."  {PoweWs  Christianity,  &c.,  pp.  229 
to  234.) 

Cranmer. 

The  production  of  Cranmer's  testimony  by  The  Press 
has  excited  the  strong  disapprobation  of  the  author  of 
Sabbatisrnos,  who  characterizes  the  attempt  as  an  act  of 
"effrontery  and  decejjtion,  which  merits  some  sharp- 
ness of  rebuke."  It  would  have  been  surprising  had 
it  disregarded  the  authority  of  so  stron'g  a  supporter 
as  Cranmer.  These  are  the  opinions  of  Cranmer,  as 
given  by  our  author  :  "  The  fourth  commandment  is 
distinguished  from  the  other  nine,  the  latter  being 
merely  moral,  the  former  ceremonial,  as  regards  '  rest 
from  bodily  labor  on  the  seventh  day,'  which  belonged 
only  to  the  Jews ;  but  moral   as  regards  the  spiritual 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  85 

rest  from  sin,  which  binds  Christians  at  all  times.  The 
command,  however,  binding  also  to  rest  from  all  bodily 
labor,  and  to  the  exclusive  service  of  God  at  certain 
times."  We  have,  however,  the  avowal  that  the  fourth 
commandment  is  ceremonial,  and  moral  so  far  as  it  is 
our  duty  to  worship  God,  and  we  cannot  but  commend 
the  Doctor's  candor  in  adducing  so  strong  a  condemna- 
tion of  his  own  chief  position.  It  would  exhibit  an 
equal  want  of  candor  on  our  part,  did  we  forbear  to 
state  that  the  Doctor  enters  his  "caveat"  against  the 
damaging  part  of  Cranmer's  statement,  while  grate- 
fully accepting  that  which  accords  with  his  own  views, 
for  the  Doctor  says,  "  owr  doctrine  is  distinctly  stated, 
along  with  so7ne  points  which  are  not  connect."  (See 
2)0St,  p.  104.) 

Baxter. 

The  Doctor  is  of  opinion  that  also  Baxter  is  strongly 
with  him,  and  it  might  be  supj^osed  from  the  para- 
graphs presented  from  the  writings  of  that  divine,  that 
no  Puritan  could  go  further  in  strictness  of  sabbatical 
ideas.  The  author  of  Sabbatismos  has,  however,  omit- 
ted to  mention  that  Baxter  is  opposed  to  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  texts  in  Eomans  and  Colossians,  and 
cannot  find  that  St.  Paul  has  reference  to  other  Jewish 
Sabbaths  than  those  referred  to  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. (TForA'S,  vol.  xiii.  367.)  Baxter  believed 
that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished,  and  that  the 
Lord's  day  took  its  place  b}^  Divine  appointment.  Bax- 
ter, no  less  firmly  than  Cranmer,  believed  that  the 
fourth  commandment  was  not  morally  binding  in  the 
sense  that  it  should  be  kept  on  the  first  da}^  of  the 
week  only :  although  he  thought  that  "it  is  of  the  law 
of  nature  that  God  should  be  worshipped,"  he  did  not 

8* 


86  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

think  that  the  law  taught  the  observance  of  '^  one  day 
in  seven,  or  just  on  what  day  of  the  seven  it  should  be," 
''  although  reason^''  he  says,  "  may  discern  that  one  day 
in  seven  is  a  very  convejiient  proportion."  (^Works,  vol. 
xix.  p.  186;   Cox,  217.) 

Calvin. 

In  the  whole  range  of  ecclesiastical  authorit}^  we  do 
not  know  where  to  find  a  more  complete  answer  and 
emphatic  censure  of  the  notions  which  the  author  of 
Sabbatismos  so  earnestly  endeavors  to  enforce,  than  are 
contained  in  the  clear  and  lofty  language,  the  liberal 
doctrines,  and  eminently  catholic  sentiments  of  Calvin's 
"Exposition"  of  the  fourth  commandment. 

In  his  commentary  on  this  commandment  he  says  '- 
(xxviii.)  "The  end  of  this  precept  is,  that,  being  dead  to 
our  own  affections  and  works,  we  should  meditate  on 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  be  exercised  in  that  medita- 
tion in  the  observance  of  his  institutions.  But,  as  it 
has  an  aspect  peculiar  and  distinct  from  the  others,  it 
requires  a  little  different  kind  of  exposition.  The 
fathers  frequently  called  it  a  shadoivy  covunandment, 
because  it  contains  the  external  observance  of  the  day 
which  was  abolished,  with  the  rest  of  the  figures,  at 
the  advent  of  Christ.  And  there  is  much  truth  in 
their  observation,  but  it  reaches  only  half  of  the  sub- 
ject, wherefore,  it  is  necessary  to  seek  further  for  an 
exposition,  and  to  consider  three  causes,  on  which,  I 
think,  I  have  observed  this  commandment  to  rest.  For 
it  was  the  design  of  the  Heavenly  Lawgiver,  under  the 
rest  of  the  seventh  day,  to  give  the  people  of  Israel  a 
figure  of  the  spiritual  rest,  by  which  the  faithful  ought 
to  refrain  from  their  own  works,  in  order  to  l^ave  God 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  87 

to  work  within  them.  His  design  was,  secondly,  tluit 
there  should  be  a  stated  day  in  which  they  might  as- 
semble together  to  hear  the  law  and  perform  the  cere- 
monies, or,  at  least,  which  they  might  especiallj^  devote 
to  meditations  on  His  works  -,  that,  by  this  recollection, 
they  might  be  led  to  the  exercise  of  piety.  Thirdly, 
He  thought  it  right  that  servants,  and  persons  living 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  others,  should  be  indulged 
with  a  day  of  rest,  that  they  might  enjoy  some  remis- 
sion from  their  labor,  (xxxi.)  .  .  .  But  all  that  it 
(the  Sabbath)  contained  of  a  ceremonial  nature  was, 
without  doubt,  abolished  by  the  advent  of  the  Lord 
Christ.  For  He  is  the  truth,  at  whose  presence  all 
figures  disappear ;  the  body,  at  the  sight  of  which  all 
the  shadows  are  relinquished.  He,  I  say,  is  the  true 
fulfilment  of  the  Sabbath.  Having  been  buried  with 
Him  by  baptism,  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 
likeness  of  his  death ;  that,  being  partakers  of  His  res- 
urrection, '  we  may  walk  in  newness  of  life'  (JAom. 
vi.  4,  &c.)-  Therefore,  the  Apostle  ssljs  in  another  place, 
that  '  the  Sabbath  was  a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come; 
but  the  body  is  of  Clirist'  (Col.  ii.  16,  17);  that  is  the 
real  substance  of  the  truth,  which  he  has  beautifully 
explained  in  that  passage.  This  is  contained  not  in 
one  day,  but  in  the  whole  course  of  our  life,  till,  being 
wholly  dead  to  ourselves,  we  be  filled  with  the  life  of 
God.  Christians,  therefore,  ought  to  depart  from  all 
superstitious  observance  of  da^^s.  (xxxii.)  As  the  two 
latter  causes,  however,  ought  not  to  be  numbered 
among  the  ancient  shadows,  but  are  equally  suitable  to 
all  ages.  Though  the  Sabbath  is  abrogated,  yet  it  is 
still  customary  among  us  to  assemble  on  stated  days 
for  hearing  the  Word,  for  breaking  the  mystic  bread, 
and  for  public  prayers,  and,  also,  to  allow  servants  and 


88  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

laborers  a  remission  from  their  labor.  That  in  com- 
manding the  Sabbath,  the  Lord  had  regard  to  both 
these  things,  cannot  be  doubted.  The  first  is  abun- 
dantly confirmed,  even  by  the  practice  of  the  Jews. 
The  second  is  proved  by  Moses,  in  Deuteronomy,  in 
these  words,  '  That  thy  man-servant  and  maid-servant 
may  rest  as  well  as  thou;'  'And  remember  that  thou 
wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt;'  also  in  Exodus, 
'  That  thine  ox  and  thine  ass  may  rest,  and  the  son  of 
thy  handmaid,  and  the  stranger,  may  be  refreshed.' 
Who  can  deny  that  both  these  things  are  as  proper  for  us 
as  for  the  Jews  ?  Assemblies  of  the  church  are  enjoined 
in  the  Divine  word,  and  the  necessity  of  them  is  suffi- 
ciently known,  even  from  the  experience  of  life.  Un- 
less there  be  stated  days  appointed  for  them,  how  can 
they  be  held  ?  According  to  the  direction  of  the 
Apostle,  '  all  things '  are  to  be  done  '  decently  and  in 
order'  among  us.  But,  so  far  is  it  from  being  possible 
to  preserve  order  and  decorum  without  this  regulation, 
that,  if  it  were  abolished,  the  church  would  be  in  im- 
minent danger  of  immediate  convulsion  and  ruin.  But 
if  we  feel  the  same  necessity,  to  relieve  which  the  Lord 
enjoined  the  Sabbath  upon  the  Jews,  let  no  one  plead 
that  it  does  not  belong  to  us ;  for  our  most  provident  and 
indulgent  Father  has  been  no  less  attentive  to  provide 
for  our  necessity  than  for  that  of  the  Jews.  But  why, 
it  may  be  asked,  do  we  not  rather  assemble  on  everyday, 
so  that  all  distinction  of  days  may  be  removed  ?  I  sin- 
cerely wish  that  this  were  practised;  and  truly  spiritual 
wisdom  would  be  well  worthy  of  some  portion  of  time 
being  daily  allotted  to  it;  but  if  the  infirmity  of  many 
persons  will  not  admit  of  daily  assemblies,  and  charity 
does  not  permit  us  to  require  more  of  them,  why  should 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  89 

we  not  obey  the  rule  which  we  have  imposed  upon  us 
by  the  will  of  God? 

(xxxiii.)  "  I  am  obliged  to  be  rather  more  diffuse 
on  this  point,  because,  in  the  present  age,  some  unquiet 
spirits  have  been  raising  a  noisy  contention  respecting 
the  Lord's  day.  They  complain  that  Christians  are 
tinctured  with  Judaism,  because  they  retain  any  obser- 
vation of  days.  But  I  reply,  that  the  Lord's  day  is  not 
observed  by  us  upon  the  principle  of  Judaism  ;  because, 
in  this  respect,  the  difference  between  us  and  the  Jews 
is  very  great,  for  we  celebrate  it,  not  with  scrupulous 
rigor  as  a  ceremony,  which  we  conceive  to  be  a  figure 
of  some  spiritual  mystery,  but  only  use  it  as  a  remedy 
necessary  to  the  preservation  of  order  in  the  church. 
But,  they  say  Paul  teaches  that  Christians  cire  not  to 
be  judged  in  the  observance  of  it,  because  it  is  a  shadow 
of  something  future  (Col.  ii.  16,  17).  Therefore,  he 
is  'afraid  lest'  he  has  'bestowed'  on  the  Galatians 
'  labor  in  vain'  because  they  continued  to  observe  days 
(Gal.  iv.  10,  11).  And  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans 
be  asserts  him  to  be  'weak  in  faith'  who  'esteemeth 
one  day  above  another'  (Eom.  xiv.  5).  But  who,  these 
furious  zealots  only  excepted,  does  not  see  what  obser- 
vance the  Apostle  intends?  For  they  did  not  observe 
them  for  the  sake  of  political  and  ecclesiastical  order; 
but  when  they  retained  them  as  shadows  of  spiritual 
things,  the}'  were  so  far  guilty  of  obscuring  the  glory 
of  Christ  and  the  light  of  the  gospel.  They  did  not, 
therefore,  rest  from  their  manual  labors,  as  from  em- 
ployment which  would  divert  them  from  sacred  studies 
and  meditations,  but  from  a  principle  of  suj^erstition, 
imagining,  then,  cessation  from  labor  to  be  still  an  ex- 
pression of  reverence  for  the  mysteries  formerly  repre- 
sented by  it. 


90  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

"  This  preposterous  distinction  of  days  the  Apostle 
strenuously  opposes,  and  not  that  legitimate  difference 
which  promotes  the  peace  of  the  Christian  church ;  for 
in  the  churches  which  he  founded  the  Sabbath  was 
retained  for  this  purpose.  He  prescribes  the  same  day 
to  the  Corinthians  for  making  collections  for  the  relief 
of  the  brethren  at  Jerusalem.  If  superstition  be  an 
object  of  fear,  there  was  more  danger  in  the  holy  days 
of  the  Jews  than  in  the  Lord's  day  now  observed  by 
Christians.  Now,  whereas,  it  was  expedient  for  the 
destruction  of  superstition  that  the  day  which  the  Jews 
kept  holy  was  abolished,  and,  it  being  necessary  for 
the  preservation  of  decorum,  order  and  peace  in  the 
Christian  church,  another  day  was  appointed  for  the 
same  use. 

(xxxiv.)  "  However,  the  ancients  have  not,  without 
sufficient  reason,  substituted  what  we  call  the  Lord's 
day  in  the  room  of  the  Sabbath.  For,  since  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Lord  is  the  end  and  consummation  of 
that  true  rest,  which  was  adumbrated  by  the  ancient 
Sabbath,  the  same  day  which  put  an  end  to  the  shad- 
ows, admonishes  us  Christians  not  to  adhere  to  a 
shadowy  ceremony.  Yet  I  do  not  lay  so  much  stress 
on  the  septenary  number,  that  I  would  oblige  the 
church  to  an  invariable  adherence  to  it;  nor  will  I  con- 
demn those  churches  which  have  other  solemn  days 
for  their  assemblies,  provided  they  keep  at  a  distance 
from  superstition ;  and  this  will  be  the  case,  if  they  be 
only  designed  for  the  observance  of  discipline  and  well- 
regulated  order.  Let  us  sum  up  the  whole  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner :  As  the  truth  was  delivered  to  the 
Jews  under  a  figure,  so  it  is  given  to  us  without  any 
shadows ;  firsts  in  order,  that  during  our  whole  life,  we 
should   meditate   on  a  perpetual   rest   from  our  own 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  91 

works,  that  the  Lord  may  operate  within  us,  by  Ilis 
spirit;  secondly^  that  every  man,  whenever  he  has 
leisure,  should  diligently  exercise  himself  in  private,  in 
pious  reflections  on  the  works  of  God;  and,  also,  that 
we  should,  at  the  same  time,  observe  the  legitimate 
order  of  the  church  appointed  for  the  hearing  of  the 
word,  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  for 
public  prayer;  thirdly,  that  we  shall  not  unkindly  op- 
press those  who  are  subject  to  us.  Thus  vanish  all  the 
dreams  of  false  prophets,  who,  in  past  ages,  have  in- 
fected the  people  with  Jewish  notions,  affirming  that 
nothing  but  the  ceremonial  part  (which,  according  to 
them,  is  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  day),  has 
been  abrogated,  but  that  the  moral  part  of  it,  that  is 
the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven,  still  remains.  But 
this  is  only  changing  the  da}^  in  contempt  of  the  Jews, 
while  they  retain  the  same  opinion  of  the  holiness  of  a 
day;  for,  on  this  principle,  the  same  mysterious  signi- 
fication would  still  be  attributed  to  particular  days 
which  they  formerly  obtained  among  the  Jews.  And, 
indeed,  we  see  what  advantages  have  arisen  from  such 
a  sentiment;  for  those  who  adhere  to  it,  far  exceed  the 
Jews  in  a  gross,  carnal  and  superstitious  observance  of 
the  Sabbath;  so  that  the  reproofs  we  find  in  Isaiah, 
are  equally  applicable  to  them  in  the  present  age,  as  to 
those  the  prophet  reproved  in  his  time.  But  the  prin- 
cipal thing  to  be  remembered  is  the  general  doctrine, 
that  lest  religion  decay  or  languish  among  us,  sacred  as- 
semblies ought  diligently  to  be  held,  and  that  we  ought 
to  use  those  external  means  which  are  adapted  to  sup- 
port the  worship  of  God."  (Calvin's  Institutes.  Book  ii, 
ch.  viii.     Presbyterian  Board  Pub.,  pp.  354  to  359.) 

The  author  of  "  Sabbatismos,"  at  page  189,  essays  to 
vindicate  the  memory  of  Calvin  from  the  serious  charge 


92  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

of  holding  sentiments  differing  from  his,  the  author's.* 
This  is,  at  least,  the  result  of  his  mode  of  criticism. 
All  that  Calvin  says  upon  the  subject,  in  his  Institutes, 
is  now  before  the  reader,  and  The  Press  having  quoted 
this  passage — "  The  false  prophets  have  said  that  noth- 
ing was  abrogated,  but  what  was  ceremonial  in  the 
commandment ;  but  the  moral  part  remains,  to  wit : 
the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven.  This  is  nothing 
else  than  to  insult  the  Jews,  by  changing  the  day,  and 
yet  mentally  attributing  to  it  the  same  sanctity;  thus 

*  The  reader  will  have  observed  how  frequently  Luther  and 
Calvin  have  been  referred  to  by  writers  as  holding  convictions 
directly  opposed  to  those  entertained  by  the  advocates  of  the  per- 
petual binding  efficacy  and  moral  obligation  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. Yet  Dr.  Junkin,  with  a  most  censurable  want  of 
fairness  and  candor,  would  fain  persuade  his  readers  that  he  and 
Luther  and  Calvin  think  precisely  alike  upon  this  question,  and 
deems  it  necessary  to  ^^  vindicate''  their  memory  from  an  opposite 
opinion.  We  have,  in  addition  to  the  testimony  already  produced, 
that  of  two  clergymen  of  the  Doctor's  own  branch  of  the  Church 
— the  conclusions  of  Rev.  Dr.  James  W.  Alexander,  soon  to  be 
quoted,  and  the  following  language  of  Rev.  Dr.  Rice  : 

"  Unhappily  for  the  cause  of  religion,  the  Reformers,  Luther 
and  Calvin,  seem  not  to  have  admitted  the  identity  of  the  Lord's 
day  with  the  original  Sabbath,  They  have  observed  the  form 
rather  as  a  matter  of  necessity  or  expediency  than  as  divinely 
commanded."  After  quoting  from  Calvin,  he  says:  "These 
views  of  the  Sabbath  go  far  for  accounting  for  the  sad  decay  of 
vital  piety ;  for  it  is  in  vain  to  hope  for  any  profitable  observance 
of  Sunday,  if  it  be  admitted  that  its  appointment  is  not  of  divine 
authority."  {Rev.  iV.  L.  Rice,  D.D.,  of  Fifth  Avenue  Presbyterian 
Church,  on  the  Oingin  and  History  of  the  Sabbath,  p.  68.  New  York, 
1862.)  We  sympathize  with  Dr.  Rice  as  to  Calvin's  unsoundness, 
and  that  a  pillar  of  such  fine  proportions,  and  on  which  reposes 
so  much  in  doctrine  of  all  which  that  church  holds  dear,  should 
swerve  in  the  slightest  from  the  perpendicular ;  but  we  do  not  see 
how,  at  this  late  day,  the  matter  is  to  be  remedied. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  93 

retaininfj;  the  same  tyj^ical  distinction  of  days  as  had 
phicc  among  the  Jews," — the  author  of  "  Sabbatismos" 
accordingly  ventures  this  comment  upon  it:  "The 
reader  will  see  how  garbled  and  unfair  is  The  Press 
quotation,  forcing  a  meaning  upon  Calvin's  language 
the  contrary  of  what  he  does  in  reality  mean.  In  this 
thirty-fourth  section  Calvin  reprobates  and  repudiates 
the  superstitious  observance  of  the  Jews,  in  regard  to 
the  seventh  day,  and  rebukes  those  who,  in  past  ages, 
changed  the  day,  but  retained  the  superstitions.  This 
utter  2:)erversion  will  further  appear  from  the  following 
testimony  of  Calvin,  from  other  parts  of  his  writings," 
&c.    (p.  192)  :* 

•5^  The  encouragement  by  Calvin  of  sports,  such  as  "bowling 
and  shooting,"  on  the  Lord's  day,  will  surprise  some  of  our  readers, 
but  will  not  those  who  shall  have  carefully  read  his  "  Exposition." 

"If  Mr.  Baxter,"  says  Archbishop  Bramhall,  "  thinks  that  no 
recreations  of  the  body  at  all  are  lawful  or  may  be  permitted 
upon  the  Lord's  day,  he  may  call  himself  a  '  Catholic '  if  he  please ; 
but  he  will  find  very  few  churches  of  any  communion  whatever, 
old  or  new,  reformed  or  unreformed,  to  bear  him  company. 

"  No.  No.  Even  among  churches  of  his  own  communion, 
which  he  calleth  the  holiest  parts  of  the  Chui^ch  upon  earth,  he 
will  find  none  at  all  to  join  with  him  except  the  churches  of  New 
England,  and  Old  England,  and  Scotland,  whereinto  this  opinion 
has  been  creeping,  by  degrees,  the  last  half  century  of  years,  or 
somewhat  more.  Before  that  time,  even  our  greatest  Disciplin- 
arians in  England  abhorred  not  private  recreations,  so  they  could 
practise  them  without  scandal.      And   Calvin  himself^  disdained 

1  In  the  edition  of  Bramhall's  works  published  by  Parker,  Oxford, 
1844,  in  5  vols.,  there  are,  at  p.  576,  vol.  ill,  the  following  notes,  which 
we  do  not  recollect  seeing  in  the  edition  we  consulted.  The  texts  pre- 
cisely agree,  and  the  notes  are  appended  to  the  passages  indicated  : 

"  •  Ut  servis  et  operariis  sua  detur  a  labore  remissio,'  is  one  purpose 
of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  according  to  Calvin  Inst.,  lib.  ii.  c.  8,  §  32. 
(Op.  torn.  ix.  p.  99,  6  ;  and  compare  his  denunciation  of  a  Judaical  Sab- 
bath, ib.  §  34,  p.  100,  a.  b.)" 

9 


94  '  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

It  gives  us  pain  to  say  that,  in  all  our  reading  upon 
controversial  subjects,  we  have  never  met  a  comment 
so  uncalled  for  and  so  unfair  as  this.  Is  it  in  truth  the 
case,  as  is  alleged  ?  Let  the  candid  reader  again  ex- 
amine all  that  Calvin  has  said  in  the  sections  quoted 
by  us,  in  full^  and  in  snatches  by  the  Doctor,  and  ask 
himself  whether  Calvin  meant  to  rebuke  those  only 
who  "  in  PAST  AGES  changed  the  day  but  retained 
the  superstitions,"  when,  in  the  very  next  sentence 
after  the  words  which  The  Press  quotes,  and  in  the 
same  connection,  Calvin  says  "Those  who  cling  to 
their  constitutions  go  twice  as  far  as  the  Jews,  in  the 
gross  and  carnal  superstition  of  sabbatism,  so  that  the 
rebukes  which  we  read  in  Isaiah  apply  as  much  to 
those  of  the  present  day  as  to  those  to  whom  the  Prophet 
addressed  them  ?"* 

This  is  most  inexcusable.  In  other  words,  what 
Calvin  says  is  this: 

That  the  false  prophets,  who  by  the  way  are  as  plen- 

not  to  countenance  and  encourage  the  hui^gers  of  Geneva  hy  his  own 
presence  and  examjyle  at  these  public  recreations,  as  bowling  and 
shooting  upon  the  Lord's  dag,  after  their  devotions  at  church  were 
ended.  In  Germany,  Switzerland,  Trance,  and  the  Low  Coun- 
tries, all  the  churches  of  his  own  communion  do  enjoy  their 
recreations.  And  in  sundry  of  them  their  prayers  and  sermons 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  Lord's  day  are  but  lately  introduced  ; 
whereas,  formerly,  not  the  vulgar  only,  but  the  most  eminent 
persons  did  use  to  bestow  the  whole  afternoon  upon  their  recrea- 
tions."^ — Archbishop  BramhalV s  Vindication  of  Grotius.  Works,  p. 
638,  tom.  i,  div.  iii.  ch.  9.  Dublin,  1676. 

*  The  translation  here  used  is  that  of  Henry  Beveridge.  Edin- 
burgh, 1845.     That  ante,  p.  91,  line  25,  differs  little. 

1  "  See  Heylin's  Hist,  of  Sabbath,  p.  ii.  c.  6,  §  §  9,  10,  and  Hist.  ofPresb.f 
bk.  ii.  U  10,  11." 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  95 

tiful  as  in  the  Eeformer's  day,  admit  that  the  ceremonial 
part  of  the  commandment,  or  the  observation  of  Satur- 
day, or  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  is  abrogated,  but  that  the 
moral  part,  or  the  keeping  of  one  day  in  the  week,  is 
still  required,  an  obligation  w^hich  Calvin  contemptuously 
(there  is  no  other  word  so  fit  to  apply  to  it)  repudiates, 
alleging  that  to  abandon  Saturday  and  yet  retain  some 
other  day  of  the  seven  is  but  to  reflecit  upon  the  Jews 
by  repudiating  their  day  and  still  to  attach  a  ^^  holiness'' 
and  "mysterious  signification"  to  another  day.  The 
Eeformer,  however,  admits  that  for  order's  sake  Chris- 
tians should  still,  at  proper  times,  assemble  for  worship. 
A  controversialist  should  be  held  to  strict  accounta- 
bility, w^hen  after  alleging  unfairness  and  dishonesty  he 
fails  to  sustain  the  charge.  In  his  attempt  to  show  that 
Calvin  has  in  one  place  pronounced  false  that  w4)ich  in 
another  Calvin  has  solemnly  declared  to  be  true,  he 
offers  an  affront  to,  not  a  ^^vindication''  of,  the  memory 
of  the  great  Eeformer  of  Geneva. 


Barclay. 

We  not  seeing  any  ground  in  Scripture  for  it,  cannot 
be  so  superstitious  as  to  believe  that  either  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  now  continues  or  that  the  first  day  of  the 
week  is  the  anti-type  thereof,  or  the  true  Christian 
Sabbath ;  which,  with  Calvin,  we  believe  to  have  a 
more  spiritual  sense;  and  therefore  we  know^  no  moral 
obligation  by  the  fourth  command,  or  elsewhere,  to 
keep  the  first  day  of  the  w^cek  more  than  any  other,  or 
any  holiness  inherent  in  it.  But  1st,  forasmuch  as  it  is 
necessary  that  there  be  some  time  set  apart  for  the 
servants  to  meet  together  to  wait  upon  God  ]  and  that 
2dly,  it  is  fit  at  some  times  they  be  freed  from  their  out- 


96  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

ward  affairs;  and  that,  Sdly,  reason  and  equity  doth 
allow  that  servants  and  beasts  have  some  time  allowed 
them  to  be  eased  from  their  constant  labor;  and  that, 
4thly,  it  ajDpears  that  the  apostles  and  primitive  Chris- 
tians did  use  the  first  day  of  the  week  for  these  pur- 
poses, we  find  ourselves  sufficiently  moved,  for  these 
causes,  to  do  so  also,  without  superstitiously  straining 
the  Scripture  for  another  reason  ;  which  that  it  is  not 
to  be  there  found,  many  Protestants  —  yea,  Calvin 
himself — upon  the  fourth  command  hath  abundantly 
evinced.  And  though  we,  therefore,  meet  and  abstain 
from  working  upon  this  day,  yet  doth  not  that  hinder 
us  from  having  meetings  also  for  worship  at  other 
times."  Barclay's  Apology^  sect,  iv,  p.  327.  Philadelphia, 
1850. 

Milton. 

The  Doctor's  attack  upon  the  character  of  Milton  is 
discreditable  to  his  taste  and  judgment,  his  reading, 
and  his  charity. 

Paradise  Lost,  nor  any  of  the  masterpieces  of  this, 
by  many  esteemed  the  greatest  of  all  Englishmen,  he 
has  evidently  never  read ;  or,  if  he  has,  not  carefully 
read. 

It  is  plain,  however,  that  he  has  confidingly  imbibed 
all  that  the  malignancy  of  Johnson  records  against  this 
glory  of  his  day  and  generation,  and  of  all  time;  that 
unscruj)ulous  and  prejudiced  critic  and  "  stern  moralist," 
who  is  better  known  as  the  calumniator  of  Milton  than 
as  the  author  of  the  poem  "London,  a  Satire." 

The  Eev.  H.  J.  Todd,  in  his  Life  of  the  Poet  (Lon- 
don, 1826,  p.  253),  says  "Milton  adorned  with  every 
graceful  endowment,  highly  and  holily  accomplished  as 
he  was,  appears,  in  the  dark  coloring  of  Johnson,  a 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  97 

most  nnamiable  being;  but  could  he  revisit  earth  in  his 
mortal  character,  with  a  wish  to  retaliate,  what  a  pic- 
ture might  be  drawn,  by  that  sublime  and  offended 
genius,  of  the  great  moralist  who  has  treated  him  with 
such  excess  of  asperity.  The  passions  are  powerful 
colorists,  and  marvellous  adepts  in  the  art  of  exaggera- 
tion ;  but  the  portraits  executed  by  Love  (famous  as  he 
is  for  overcharging  them)  are  infinitely  more  faithful 
to  nature  than  gloomy  sketches  from  the  heavy  hand 
of  Hatred,  a  passion  not  to  be  trusted  or  indulged  even 
in  minds  of  the  highest  purity  and  power;  since  hatred, 
though  it  ma}'  enter  the  field  of  contest  under  the  ban- 
ner of  justice,  yet  generally  becomes  so  blind  and  out- 
rageous, from  the  heat  of  contention,  as  to  execute,  in 
the  name  of  virtue,  the  worst  purposes  of  vice.  Hence 
arises  that  species  of  calumny  the  most  to  be  regretted, 
the  calumny  lavished  by  men  of  talents  and  worth  on 
their  equals  or  superiors,  whom  they  have  rashly  and 
blindl}^  hated  for  a  difference  of  opinion." 

Now  listen  to  Dr.  Junkin,  and,  we  ask,  could  any- 
thing be  more  wretched  in  taste,  or  much  worse  in  its 
spirit:  "Milton,  like  most  men  of  his  day,  and  many 
in  our  day,  was  befogged  in  the  Red  Sea ;  they  have 
not  been  able  to  see  the  difference  between  the  regular 
seventh-day  rest  and  the  extra  Sabbaths  of  the  Israel- 
ites, of  which  you  have  five  in  Lev.  xxiii."  (Unfortunate 
Milton  !)  "  Milton  was  a  splendid  linguist  and  a  great 
poet.  He  has  never  enjoyed  the  reputation  of  a  pious, 
godly  man.  He  is  claimed,  by  them  of  that  creed,  as  a 
Unitarian,  and  all  that  sect  go  in  for  a  lively,  slack, 
and  sportive  Sabbath."  .  .  .  Quoting  from  Dr.  Johnson, 
he  says:  "Milton  grew  old  without  any  visible  wor- 
ship. In  the  distribution  of  his  time  there  was  no 
hour  of  prayer,  either  solitary  or  with  his  household; 

9* 


98  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

omitting  public  prayer,  he  omitted  all."  (Page  207.) 
"  It  is  fortunate  for  the  Sabbath,"  further  says  the  Doc- 
tor, "that  Milton  was  not  its  friend."    (Page  208.) 

'Now  hear  what  Milton,  himself,  says  :  '*  Although  it 
is  the  duty  of  believers  to  join  themselves,  if  possible, 
to  a  church  duly  constituted  (Heb.  x.  25),  yet  such  as 
cannot  do  this  conveniently,  or  with  full  satisfaction  of 
conscience,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  excluded  from 
the  blessing  bestowed  by  God  on  the  churches."  (Book 
i.  chap.  29,  Of  the  Visible  Church.)  This  is  an  important 
passage.  Dr.  Sumner  says,  "  because  it  discloses  Mil- 
ton's real  views  upon  a  point  in  which  his  opinions 
have  been  represented  in  a  more  unfavorable  light 
than  they  seem  to  have  deserved." 

After  quoting  from  some  observations  of  Bishop 
Newton,  his  biographer  remarks,  "  It  has  been  candidly 
and  judiciously  stated  in  a  note  upon  this  passage,  by 
Mr.  Hawkins,"  to  which  Dr.  Sumner  refers,  "  that  the 
reproach  which  has  been  thrown  upon  Milton,  of  fre- 
quenting no  place  of  public  worship,  in  his  latter  days, 
should  'be  received,  as  Dr.  Symmons  observes,  with 
some  caution.  His  blindness,  and  other  infirmities, 
might  be,  in  part,  his  excuse;  and  it  is  certain  that  his 
daily  employments  were  always  ushered  in  by  devout 
meditation  and  study  of  the  Scriptures."  (Todd, 
page  332.) 

"  His  favorite  book  was  the  Book  of  God.  To  Milton, 
when  a  child,  Eevelation  opened  not  her  richest  stores 
in  vain.  To  devotional  subjects  his  infant  strains  were 
dedicated;  and  never  did  '  his  harp  forget'  to  acknowl- 
edge  the   aid    he    derived    from    the   muse   of    sacred 

inspiration It  must  gratify  everj^  Christian 

to  reflect,"  Mr.  Hagley  observes,  "  that  the  man  of  our 
country  most  eminent  for  energy  of  mind,  for  intense- 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  99 

ness  of  application,  and  for  frankness  and  intrepidity 
in  asserting  whatever  he  believed  to  he  the  cause  of  truth, 
was  so  confirmedly  devoted  to  Christianity,  that  he 
seems  to  have  made  the  Eible  not  only  the  rule  of  his 
conduct,  but  the  prime  director  of  his  genius."  Yes, 
he  says  of  himself,  "  I  am  among  the  free  and  ingenu- 
ous sort  of  such  as  evidentlj^  were  born  for  study,  and 
love  learning  for  itself,  not  for  lucre,  or  any  other  end 
but  the  service  of  God  and  truth,  and,  perhaps,  that  last- 
ing fame  and  perpetuity  of  praise,  which  God  and  good 
men  have  consented  shall  be  the  reward  of  those  whose 
published  labors  advance  the  good  of  mankind."  {Areo- 
pagltica.     Todd,  page  248.) 

Such  was  Milton,  the  devout  student  of  the  Scrip- 
tures; the  ardent  seeker  after  truth;  the  profound 
theologian;  one  of  the  ripest  scholars  and  brightest  in- 
tellects of  his  own,  or  of  any  age  ;  and  above  all,  as  the 
highest  title,  the  sincere  Christian.  And  what  is  his 
grave  offence?  Why  should  the  author  of  Sabbatismos 
declare  it  fortunate  that,  as  to  Sunday,  Milton  "was  not 
its  friend?"  "We  repl}^,  simply  because  he  held  the 
same  convictions  on  this  question  as  did  Luther,  Calvin, 
Whately,  White,  Alexandei-, — no  more! 

As  if  it  should  be  a  matter  of  congratulation  and  of 
gratitude,  a  "/or^imrtYe"  circumstance,  that  an  institu- 
tion of  God.' Q  perpetual  appointment  (were  it  such),  de- 
pended upon  the  puny  skill  of  the  advocate  for  or 
against  it,  thus  placing  it  upon  the  lowest  foundation 
conceivable,  as  you  would  a  cause  in  court,  to  be  gained 
not  by  the  evidence  and  the  law,  but  b}''  the  good  ^^ for- 
tune "  of  your  choice  of  an  advocate.  Could  any  ad- 
mission, or  an}'  language,  be  more  unhappy  for  the  pur- 
poses intended. 

AVe  cannot  close  this  hv'iQi  ^^Vindication''  of  the  mem- 


100  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

ory  of  John  Milton,  without  quoting  the  noble  lines  of 
Wordsworth : 

''  Milton  !  thou  shouldst  be  living  at  this  hour. 

Return  to  us  again, 

And  give  us  manners,  virtue,  freedom,  power. 

Thy  soul  was  like  a  star,  and  dwelt  apart ; 
Thou  hadst  a  voice,  whose  sound  was  like  the  sea : 
Pure  as  the  naked  heavens,  majestic,  free; 
So  didst  thou  travel  on  life's  common  way, 

In  cheerful  Godliness^  and  yet  thy  heart 
The  lowliest  duties  on  herself  did  lay." 


Archbishop  Whately. 

Of  all  those  who  have  discussed  the  "  Sabbath  ques- 
tion," no  one  has  written  with  more  precision  and 
conclusiveness  than  Archbishop  AYhately.  Of  singularly 
penetrating  understanding,  logical  mind,  great  breadth 
and  clearness  of  view,  a  large  share  of  theological 
knowledge  and  eminent  piety,  he  was  prepared  to  speak 
with  some  degree  of  authority. 

The  argument  which  we  quote  at  some  length,  will 
please  the  reader  as  possfessing  all  the  qualities  which 
might  be  expected  from  the  pen  of  one  so  thoroughly 
equipped.  It  does  not,  however,  constitute  all  that 
Whately  has  written  upon  this  topic,  and  a  reference  to 
his  other  works  will  reward  the  student  who  desires  to 
pursue  his  investigations  on  this  subject. 

"  I  have  already,"  says  Whately,  '•  hinted  m}^  sus- 
picions, that  some  persons,  who  do  not  really  believe 
the  Mosaic  law  relative  to  the  Sabbath  to  be  binding  on 
Christians,  yet  think  it  right  to  encourage,  or  tacitly 
connive  at,  that  belief,  from  views  of  expediency,  for 
fear  of  unsettling  the  minds  of  the  common  people. 
But  there  are  many,  no  doubt,  who  maintain  the  same 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  101 

tenet  from  sincere  conviction.  Some  again  there  are, 
who  conceive  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  to  be 
founded,  not  on  the  authority  of  the  Decalogue,  but  on 
a  supposed  command  given  to  all  mankind  at  the  cre- 
ation, the  force  of  which,  as  it  was  antecedent  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  cannot,  of  course,  be  affected  by  its  aboli- 
tion. These  views,  though  I  cannot'  coincide  with 
them,  are  not,  it  is  plain^  at  all  at  variance  with  what 
has  been  said  in  the  fifth  essay. 

"  But  the  op>inion  that  Christians  are  bound  to  the 
hallowing  of  the  Lord's  day,  in  "obedience  to  the  fourth 
commandment,  goes  to  nullify  all  that  I  have  there 
urged,  since  it  implies  that  there  is  a  part^  at  least,  of 
the  Mosaic  law  binding  on  Christians.  I  should  say 
thQ  whole ;  for,  since  the  fourth  commandment  is  evi- 
dently not  a  moral,  but  a  positive  precept  (it  being  a 
thing  in  itself  indifferent,  antecedent  to  any  command, 
whether  the  seventh  day,  or  the  sixth,  or  the  eighth, 
be  observed),  I  cannot  conceive  how  the  consequence 
can  be  avoided,  that  '  we  are  debtors  to  keep  the  whole 
law,'  ceremonial  as  well  as  moral.  The  dogma  of  the 
'Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster'  (in  their  'Con- 
fession of  Faith,'  chap.  xxi.  §7),  that  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  is  a  part  of  the  moral  law,  is  to  me  utterly 
unintelligible.  Yet,  unless  we  assent  to  this,  adopting 
some  such  sense  of  the  term  'moral'  as  it  is  difficult 
even  to  imagine,  I  do  not  see  on  what  principle  we 
can,  consistently,  admit  the  authority  of  the  fourth 
commandment,  and  yet  claim  exemption  from  the  prohi- 
bition of  certain  meats,  and  of  blood,  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision, or,  indeed,  any  part  of  the  Levitical  law.  But 
to  those  who  fear  that  the  reverence  due  to  the  Lord's 
daj"  would  be  left  without  support,  should  we  deny  the 
obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law,  1  would  suggest  two  con- 


102  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

siderations,  either  of  which  would  be  alone  sufficient  to 
show  that  their  apprehensions  are  entirely  groundless  : 

"  First,  That  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Lord's  day  in 
the  Mosaic  law. 

''  Second,  That  the  power  of  the  church,  bestowed 
by  Christ  himself,  would  alone  (even  independent 
of  apostolic  example  and  ancient  usage),  be  amply  suf- 
ficient to  sanction  and  enforce  the  observance. 

"  To  seek,  therefore,  for  the  support  of  an  institution 
which  is  '  bound  on  earth'  by  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
which,  consequently,  He  has  promised  to  '  bind  in 
heaven,'  among  the  abrogated  ordinances  of  the  Mosaic 
law,  where,  after  all,  it  is  not  to  be  found,  is  to  remove 
it  from  a  foundation  of  rock  to  place  it  on  one  of  sand; 
it  is  to  *  seek  for  the  living  among  the  dead.' 

"In  saying  that  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Lord's 
day  in  the  Mosaic  law,  I  mean  that  there  is  not  only 
no  mention  of  that  specific  festival  which  Christians 
observe  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  in  memory  of  our 
Lord's  resurrection  on  the  morning  following  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath,  but  there  is  not  (as  has  sometimes  been 
incautiously  stated),  any  injunction  to  sanctify  one  day 
in  seven.  Throughout  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
we  never  hear  of  keeping  holy  some  one  day  in  every 
seven,  but  the  seventh  day,  ^s  the  day  on  which  '  God 
rested  from  all  His  work.'  The  difference,  accordingly, 
between  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  is  not  a  difi'erence 
of  reckoning^  which  would  be  a  matter  of  no  impor- 
tance. Our  computation  is  the  same  as  theirs.  They, 
as  well  as  we,  reckon  Saturday  as  the  seventh  day,  in 
memory  of  God's  resting  from  the  work  of  creation. 
We  keep  holy  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  first,  in 
memory  of  our  Master's  rising  from  the  dead,  on  the 
day  after  the  Sabbath.     Now,  surely,  it  is  presumptu- 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  103 

ous  to  say  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  alter  a  divine  com- 
mand, whose  authority  we  admit  to  be  binding  upon 
us,  on  the  ground  that  it  matters  not  whether  this  day 
or  that  be  set  apart  as  a  Sabbath,  provided,  that  we 
obey  the  divine  injunction  to  observe  a  Sabbath." 

Whately  then  instances  the  offence  of ''Jeroboam, 
the  son  of  Nebat,"  who  had  made  Israel  to  sin,  "  by 
instituting  a  feast  that  he  had  devised  of  his  own  heart;" 
that  of  the  Samaritans,  when  they  built  a  temple  on 
Mount  Gerizim,  &c.,  and  proceeds  to  say,  "  I  cannot, 
therefore,  but  think  that  the  error  was  less  of  those  early 
Christians,  who,  conceiving  the  injunction  relative  to 
the  Sabbath  to  be  binding  on  them,  obej'ed  it  just  as  it 
was  given  (provided,  they  did  not,  contrary  to  the 
Apostle's  injunction,  Eom.  xiv.  2-6,  presume  to  judge 
their  brethren  who  thought  differently),  than  of  those 
who,  admitting  the  eternal  obligation  of  the  precept, 
yet  presume  to  alter  it  on  the  authority  of  tradition. 
Surely,  if  we  allow  that  the  'tradition  of  the  church' 
is  competent  to  change  the  express  commands  of  God, we 
are  falling  into  one  of  the  most  dangerous  errors  of  the 
Eomanists;  and  this,  while  we  loudly  censure  them  for 
presuming  to  refuse  the  cup  to  the  laity  at  the  Lord's 
supper,  on  the  authority  of  their  church,  though  Christ 
said  to  his  disciples,  '  drink  ye  all  of  this,'  and  for 
pleading  tradition  in  behalf  of  saint-worship,  &c.  But, 
in  the  present  case,  there  is  not  even  any  tradition  to 
the  purpose.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  Apostles  left  us 
no  command  perpetuating  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath, and  transferring  the  day  from  the  seventh  to  the 
first.  Such  a  change  certainly  would  have  been  author- 
ized by  their  express  injunction,  and  by  nothing  short 
of  that, — since  an  express  divine  command  can  be  ab- 
rogated or  altered  only  by  the  same  power,  and  by  the 


104  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

same  distinct  revelation,  by  which  it  was  delivered. 
But,  not  only  is  there  no  such  apostolic  injunction^  than 
which  nothing  less  would  be  sufficient,  there  is  not  even 
any  traditioyi  of  their  having  made  such  a  change  ;  nay, 
more,  it  is  even  abundantly  j^lain  that  they  made  no 
such  change. 

"There  are,  indeed,  sufficiently  plain  marks  of  the 
early  Christians  having  observed  the  Lord's  day  as  a  re- 
ligious festival,  even  from  the  very  resurrection  (John 
XX.  19,  26;  Acts  xx.  7;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2;  Eev.  i.  10);  but  so 
far  were  they  from  substituting  this  for  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, that  all  of  them  who  were  Jeivs  actually  continued 
themselves  to  observe  not  only  the  Mosaic  Sabbath,  but 
the  whole  of  the  Levitical  law,  while  to  the  Gentile  con- 
verts they  said,  '  Let  no  man  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in 
drink,  or  in  respect  of  an  holy  day,  or  of  the  new 
moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath-day,  which  are  a  shadow  of 
things  to  come ;  but  the  body  is  of  Christ.'  And,  if  we 
come  down  to  later  ages  of  the  church,  we  not  only 
find  no  allusion  to  any  such  tradition,  but  we  find  the 
contrary  distinctly  implied,  both  in  the  writings  of  the 
early  fathers,  and  in  those  of  the  most  eminent  of  the 
founders  of  our  Eeformation;  e.  g.  in  Cranmefs  Cate- 
chism, published  in  1548,  viz.,  the  first  year  of  Edward 
YI.  we  find  the  following  passage :  '  And  here  note,  good 
children,  that  the  Jewes,  in  the  Old  Testament,  were 
commanded  to  keep  the  Sabbath-da}^,  and  they  ob- 
served it  every  seventh  day,  called  the  Sabbat,  or  Sat- 
terday.  But  we  Christian  men,  in  the  New  Testament, 
are  not  bound  to  such  commandment  of  Moses'  law 
concerning  differences  of  times,  days,  and  meats,  but 
have  liberty  and  freedom  to  use  other  dayes  for  our 
Sabbath-dayes,  wherein  to  hear  the  word  of  God,  and 
keep  an  holy  rest.     And,  therefore,  that  this  Christian 


THE   SUNDAY    QUESTION.  105 

liberty  may  be  kept  and  maintained,  we  now  keep  no 
more  the  Sabbatb  on  Saturday,  as  the  Jews  do;  but  we 
observe  the  Sunday,  and  certain  other  days,  as  the  mag- 
istrates do  judge  convenient  whom  in  this  thing  we 
ought  to  obey.' 

"  By  the  authority  of  the  magistrates,  Cranmer  evi- 
dently meant  that  of  the  church,  &c.,  &c.  In  fact,  the 
notion  I  am  contending  against,  seems,  as  far  as  I  can 
collect,  to  have  originated  with  the  Puritans  not  mucli 
more  than  two  hundred  years  ago,  and  to  have  been, 
for  a  considerable  time,  confined  to  them;  though  it 
was  subsequently  adopted  by  several  members  of  our 

church But  if  any  persons  are  convinced  that 

it  was  given  to  Adam,  and  also  conclude  thence  that  it 
must  bind  all  his  posterity,  they  are,  of  course,  at  least 
equally  bound  by  the  (recorded)  precept  to  Xoah,  rela- 
tive to  abstinence  from  blood He  who  acknowl- 
edges a  divine  command  to  extend  to  himself,  ought 
to  have  an  equally  express  divine  command  to  sanction 
any  alteration  in  it.  Those  Christians  of  the  present 
day,  however,  who  admit  the  obligation  of  the  ancient 
Sabbath,  have  yet  taken  the  liberty  to  change  not  only 
the  day,  but  the  mode  of  observance If  we  ad- 
mit the  authority  of  the  written  law,  and  reject  merely 
the  Pharisaical  additions  to  it,  we  are  then  surely 
bound  to  comply,  at  least,  with  the  express  directions 
which  are  written;  for  instance  (Exod.  xxxv.  2,  3),  'Ye 
shall  kindle  no  fire  throughout  your  habitations  upon  the 
Sabbath-day,'  no  one  can  pretend  is  a  traditional  pre- 
cept;  yet  I  know  of  no  Christians  who  profess  to  ob- 
serve it If    the   positive    institutions   of  the 

Old  Testament  are  wholl}^  abrogated,  then,  (and  not 
otherwise)  all  days  become  in  themselves  indifferent, 
and  in  such  a  case,  the  Church  has,  as  I  have  above 

10 


106  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

remarked,  full  power  to  sanctify  any  that  may  be 
thought  more  fitting;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Church  has  not  power  to  ordain  anything  contrary  to 
God's  word;  so  that  if  the  precepts  relative  to  the 
ancient  Sabbath  are  acknowledged  to  remain  in  force, 
then  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  in- 
stead of  the  seventh,  becomes  an  unwarrantable  pre- 
sumption. This,  therefore,  is  a  case  in  which  (unless 
we  consecrate  two  Sabbath-days  in  each  week),  we 
must  absolutely  make  our  choice  between  the  law  and 
the  Gospel."  {Note  to  Archbishop  Whately's  Essays 
on  some  of  the  Difficulties  in  the  Writings  of  St.  Paul;  p. 
45,  and  Appendix  337.     London,  1830.) 


We  had  proposed  to  here  insert  some  extracts  from 
the  sermons  and  letters  of  that  eminent  divine,  the 
late  Frederick  W.  Eobertson,  of  Brighton,  England. 
We  shall  endeavor  to  print  them  in  an  appendix,  if  the 
space,  which  we  have  allotted  ourselves,  will  permit. 


Bishop  White. 
Bishop  White,  in  his  lectures  on  the  Catechism  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  after  reciting  the 
fourth  commandment,  and  noticing  the  difficulty  which 
attends  the  statement,  that  the  "  Sabbath"  was  observed 
by  the  patriarchs,  and  expressing  the  belief  that  the 
institution  ceased  in  relation  to  the  Jewish  converts 
to  Christianity,  quotes  the  text  in  Col.  ii.  16,  in  proof 
of  it.  He  also  remarks,  "  And  this  may  show  the  rea- 
son on  which  our  Church  avoids  the  calling  of  her  day 
of  worship — 'the  Sabbath.'  It  is  never  so  called  in 
the  New  Testament.     And  in  the  primitive  Church, 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  107 

the  term  '  sabbatizing'  carried  with  it  the  reproach  of 
a  leaning  to  the  abrogated  observances  of  the  law. 
But  on  the  ceasing  of  the  Sabbath,  with  the  moral  rea- 
son of  it  remaining — that  is,  in  the  duty  of  social  wor- 
ship, and  in  the  utility  of  there  being  regular  returns 
of  opportunities  of  it,  the  Apostles  of  our  Saviour  ap- 
pointed, that  there  should  be,  as  before,  one  day  in 
seven  thus  appropriated;  but  preferring  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  in  memory  of  the  resurrection.  Hence  it 
is  called  in  one  place  in  Scripture,  '  the  Lord's  day ' 
(Eev.  i.  10).  And  there  are  other  places  which  show 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  the  stated  time 
to  assemble  for  public  worship.  Perhaps  the  Lord's 
day  may  be  considered  as  the  most  suitable  name  for 
the  Christian  Sabbath.  And  yet  there  is  uo  need  for 
such  stiffness  in  this  matter,  as  to  fault  the  use  of  the 
word  '  Sunday,'  which  prevails  in  our  Liturgy.  The 
early  Christians  conformed  to  the  customs  of  their 
heathen  neighbors,  in  the  calling  of  the  days  and  the 
months.  In  proof  of  this  I  shall  refer  to  one  authority 
only.  It  is  that  of  Justin,  a  blessed  martyr,  quoted  in 
a  preceding  lecture,  as  writing  within  half  a  century 
after  the  last  of  the  Apostles.  Justin,  in  describing  the 
worship  of  Christians,  as  then  performed  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  applies  to  it  the  name  of 'Sunday.' 

"  It  is  hoped  that  the  view  here  taken  of  the  subject, 
will  enable  us  to  answer  the  third  question:  How  far 
the  appointment  of  the  Sabbath  is  now  binding  on  the 
Christian  Church. 

"If  the  principles  stated  be  correct,  it  follows,  that 
whatever  rests  only  on  any  precept  to  the  Israelites  is 
done  away.  But  the  object  now  being  simpl}^  the  uses 
attached  to  public  and  private  devotion,  and  to  relig- 
ious instructions  received  or  given,  the  spirit  of  the 


108  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

appointment  remains,  dictating  the  means  the  best 
adapted  to  the  accomplishing  of  these  uses,  and  pro- 
hibiting whatever  interferes  with  the  same.  This  is 
to  be  understood,  w4th  the  exception  of  works  of  ne- 
cessity, and  those  of  mercy,  so  that  in  the  present 
state  of  society,  differing  materially,  as  it  does,  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  Jewish  people,  if  there  be  any 
employment  conducing  to  the  civil  weal,  which  cannot 
be  suspended  on  the  Lord's  day  without  the  defeating 
the  very  object;  it  seems  to  follow,  that  the  suspension 
may  be  dispensed  with  under  such  regulations  of  al- 
ternate labor,  as  will  be  consistent  with  the  interests 
of  civil  life,  without  destroying,  although,  doubtless, 
abridging  the  religious  privileges  of  the  persons  so  em- 
ployed. In  addition  to  this,  the  latitude  here  taken 
embraces  such  occasional  occupation,  as  may  prevent 
great  loss  :  such  as  the  gathering  in  of  the  harvest, 
when  it  might  otherwise  be  ruined,  or  materially  dam- 
aged, by  an  unfavorable  state  of  the  weather. 

"This  instance  is  here  given  in  consequence  of  find- 
ing, that  on  the  conversion  of  the  Eoman  emperors,  and 
when  they  began  to  make  laws  for  the  hallowing  of 
the  Lord's  day,  this  was  one  of  the  exceptions ;  which 
would  not  have  been  made,  had  it  been  alien  from  the 
sense  of  the  Church,  in  her  state  then  existing,  and  to 
which  she  had  attained  after  the  fiery  trials  of  her 
heavy  persecutions.  What  has  been  here  said,  is 
deemed  to  be  nothing  more  than  what  is  consonant  to 
the  saying  of  our  Saviour,  that  the  '  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.' 

"  Cases  of  difliculty  and  emergency  being  out  of  the 
question,  there  can  be  nothing  clearer,  than  that  per- 
sons who  have  their  time,  and  their  conduct  at  their  own 
disposal,  are  bound  to  spend  the  Lord's  day  in  such  a 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  109 

maimer  as  shall  answer  the  purposes  of  the  appoint- 
ment. It  is  not  here  said — for  it  is  not  thought — that 
they  are  bound  to  a  degree  of  precision,  affected  by  some, 
forbidding  the  ordinary  civilities  of  life ;  or  such  exercise 
of  the  limbs  of  persons  in  sedentary  employment,  as  may 
be  beneficial  to  their  health.  But  all  habits  of  living, 
which  prevent  either  masters  and  mistresses  of  families, 
or  their  children,  and  their  servants,  from  the  devo- 
tions of  the  Church,  and  of  the  closet;  and  anything 
under  the  name,  either  of  business  or  amusement,  hav- 
ing the  same  effect,  is  contrary  to  the  Christian  char- 
acter; contrary  to  it  in  a  point  Avhich  wise  men  have 
always  held  essential  to  the  maintaining  of  the  visible 
profession  of  Christianity;  and  not  only  this,  but  to 
the  maintaining  of  a  popular  regard  to  law,  to  order, 
and  to  decorum." 

By  the  phrase,  the  "  moral  reason  of  the  Sabbath 
remaining,"  w^e  presume  is  meant  that  the  duty  of 
worshipping  our  Creator  is  unalterable,  and  does  not 
depend  upon  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  the 
obligation  of  the  fourth  commandment.  As  to  the  ideas 
of  "substitution,"  and  the  alleged  appointment  by  the 
Apostles  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  subject  has 
alreadj^  been  discussed,  and  the  reader,  with  the  New 
Testament  before  him,  is  as  capable  of  forming  a  cor- 
rect judgment  as  the  most  acute  theologian. 

Though  the  thoughts  expressed  by  the  Bishop  are  ap- 
parently less  liberal  than  those  of  Luther  and  Calvin, 
we  think,  upon  examination,  they  will  not  be  found  so. 
This,  however,  will  the  candid  yield,  that  it  is  not  the 
"  Puritan  Sabbath"  which  he  commends,  if  he  is  some- 
what guarded  in  the  expression  of  his  sentiments.  He 
does  not  explain  what  he  means  by  the  interchange  of 

10* 


110  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

the  '•  civilities  of  life;"  yet  we  can  understand  that  the 
concession  of  the  right  of  recreation  to  the  sedentary 
admits  pretty  much  all  for  which  we  have  been  con- 
tending, and  imports  a  much  less  rigid  conception  of 
the  privilege  of  Christians  than  the  Doctor  entertains, 
when  upon  Sunday  he  would  prohibit  "  meditation  and 
study,"  except  upon  religious  topics,  and  falls  back,  as 
his  warrant  for  this  position,  upon  the  words  in  Isaiah 
Iviii.  18,  which  enforce  a  dispensation  which  has  passed 
away :  ''  If  thou  turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath, 
from  doing  thy  pleasure  on  my  holy  day,  not  doing 
thine  own  ways,  nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure,  nor 
speaking  thine  own  words"  (p.  143). 


Eev.  James  W.  Alexander,  D.D. 

This  eminently  excellent  and  pious  clergyman,  ripe 
scholar,  and  liberal  theologian,  whose  loss  was  deeply 
lamented  not  only  by  his  own  denomination,  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  but  by  other  communions,  in  writing 
from  New  York,  says :  "  The  question  of  riding  in  our 
street  cars  on  Sunday  is  agitating  our  community.  I 
have  not  been  able  to  decide  it.  The  poor  go  in  cars; 
the  rich  in  coaches.  The  number  of  horses  and  men 
employed  is  less  than  if  there  were  no  cars.  It  is  a 
query  whether  as  many  cars  as  these  would  be  demand- 
ed by  those  (among  half  a  million),  who  have  lawful 
occasion  to  journey.  If  so,  the  question  of  duty  would 
be  reduced  to  one  of  individual  vocation  to  this  amount 
of  locomotion.  The  whole  matter  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath  is  a  little  perplexed  to  my  mind.  1.  All  that 
our  Lord  says  on  it  is  prima  facie  of  the  side  of  relaxa- 
tion.    2.  The  Apostles,  who  enforce,  and,  as  it  were, 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  Ill 

re-enact  every  other  commandment  of  the  ten,  never 
advert  to  this.  3.  Even  to  Gentile  converts  they  lay 
no  stress  on  this,  which  might  be  expected  to  come  first 
among  externals.  4.  According  to  the  letter,  Paul 
teaches  the  Colossians  (ii.  16),  not  to  be  scrupulous 
about  Sabbaths.  I  am  not,  therefore,  surprised  that 
Calvin  had  doubts  on  the  subject.  The  very  strict 
views  on  the  Sabbath  have  prevailed  in  no  part  of 
Christendom  unconnected  with  the  British  Isles.  I 
must  wait  for  more  light.  I  admit  the  fact  that  spirit- 
ual religion  has  most  flourished  w^here  the  strict  opin- 
ions have  prevailed.  My  good  father  used  to  say,  '  Be 
very  strict  yourself;  be  very  lenient  in  judging  j'our 
neighbors.'  I  have  always  taken  milk  without  scru- 
ple, which  is  an  offence  to  hundreds  of  good  people 
among  us.  Some  began  to  have  qualms  on  Sunday 
gas;  but,  on  inquiry,  they  found  the  labor  which  pro- 
duced it  fell  on  Thursday  or  Friday.  As  I  alwaj^sgive 
my  people  a  motto  for  the  year,  and  preach  on  it,  I 
have  chosen,  'My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee."'  (Letter 
dated  New  York,  Dec.  31,  1852,  from  Forty  Years' 
Familiar  Letters^  hy  James  W.  Alexander,  D.D.,  vol.  ii., 
p.  183.     New  York,  1861.) 


The  doctrine  maintained  by  the  author  of  ''  Sabba- 
tismos,"  is  not  a  half-way  doctrine.  There  is  no  quali- 
fication or  modification  in  it.  It  is  with  him  the  whole 
laW;  as  binding  and  as  rigidly  to  be  enforced  now,  as  it 
was  by  the  Jews,  before  the  new  dispensation,  or  by  the 
Puritans  and  "Pilgrim  Fathers"  since.  He  evidently 
believes  the  ceremonial  part  of  the  fourth  commandment 
still  in  existence,  else  why  so  inconsistent  as  to  over- 
load his  book  with  obsolete  quotations  from  the  Old 


112  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

Testament.  He  is  opposed  to  the  convictions  of  the 
great  lights  of  his  own  and  other  churches.  He  brings 
himself  clearly  within  the  line  of  Calvin's  condemna- 
tion, as  one  of  those  ^^ false  prophets"  whom  the  Ee- 
former  so  bitterly  denounces. 

Indeed,  if  we  did  not  believe  the  Doctor  eminently 
sincere^  in  all  he  has  attempted  to  prove,  we  should 
pronounce  him  a  Jew  in  disguise  (not  that  we  mean  to 
reflect  upon  those  of  that  sect  who,  in  their  strictness, 
conscientiously  think  they  are  right),  for  what  Jew  in 
the  days  of  Moses  could  go  further  than  the  Doctor 
goes,  when  he  insists,  as  we  have  already  mentioned, 
that  the  individual  is  prohibited  "from  meditation  and 
study  and  the  outgo  of  desire  after  his  business  on  the 
holy  day ;  for  this  interferes  with  other  parts  of  the  con- 
secration" (p.  143).  It,  therefore,  follows — that  if  the 
whole  of  the  Sunday  is  not  observed,  nay,  if  nine-tenths 
of  such  portion  of  it  as  is  not  required  for  sleep,  &c.,  is 
not  kept  sacred,  that  is  by  attendance  upon  church,  or 
devotion  to  holy  meditation,  and  if  not  to  meditation, 
at  least  to  all  freedom  from  thought,  whatever,  or  from 
such  thoughts  as  are  worldly  in  their  nature ;  the  one- 
tenth  so  bestowed,  nay,  the  least  conceivable  portion 
of  a  tenth,  neutralizes  all  the  piety,  all  of  the  "  good 
works,"  exhibited  in  the  other  nine-tenths,  and  the  man 
has  grievously  sinned  by  breaking  the  fourth  command- 
ment. This  is  a  reiteration  of  the  violation  of  the  law 
even  in  a  tittle.  There  is  no  escape  in  this  conclusion 
from  the  premises  laid  down.  Now,  let  us  in  all  seri- 
ousness ask  our  author  whether  he  has  not  often,  since 
he  assumed  the  duties  of  his  calling,  infringed  the  fourth 
commandment.  Has  he  never,  in  his  long  life,  had  a 
wayward  passing  thought  upon  worldly  affairs,  or  con- 
versed upon  a  worldly  topic,  even  if  but  for  a  moment  ? 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  113 

Has  he  never,  if  not  counselled,  at  least  permitted,  upon 
occasion,  to  pass  without  rebuke,  some  violation  of  the 
strictness  he  endeavors  to  enforce  ?  Has  he  never  been 
driven  to  the  house  of  God,  when  he  might  as  conve- 
niently have  w^alked  ?  Has  he  not,  upon  Sunday  and 
without  protest,  partaken  of  hospitality,  if  he  has  for- 
bidden it  under  his  own  roof,  w^hcre  those  who  served 
had  not,  in  consequence,  that  rest  which  the  fourth  com- 
mandment so  strictly  enjoins?  We  mean  no  reflection 
upon  him,  we  do  not  blame  him,  w^e  cast  no  censure,  he 
is  but  a  mortal;  and  we  allude  merely  to  that  unavoid- 
able breach  of  the  Jewish  code  which  all  may  commit, 
who  live  among  their  fellows,  and  an  escape  from  which 
can  be  found,  only,  in  the  life  of  the  ascetic.  We  have 
said,  we  do  not  blame  him  ;  we  should,  however,  have 
been  gratified,  had  he  frankly  admitted  that  such  ob- 
servance as  he  insists  upon,  is  not  attainable  in  our 
sublunary  sinful  sphere,  but  this  perhaps  would  have 
been  a  relinquishment  of  his  ground,  and  an  acknowl- 
edgment that  the  fourth  commandment  may,  under 
some  circumstances,  be  the  subject  of  qualification  or 
change. 

A  statute,  however,  although  it  may  cease  by  its  ow  n 
limitation,  cannot  be  the  subject  of  alteration  or  re- 
peal, save  by  the  power  which  enacted  it.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  to  suit  his  own  view,  in  the  power  of  him 
against  whom  its  provisions  are  directed,  to  modify  the 
stringency  of  its  requirements. 

In  speaking  of  the  letter  of  the  Jewish  Law,  the 
Eev.  Baden  Powell,  says,  "  The  Law^  conformed  to  many 
points  of  human  infirmity.  It  afforded  splendid  rites 
and  ceremonies  to  attract  popular  reverence,  and  wean 
the  people  from  their  proneness  to  the  gross  ceremo- 
nies of  idolatry.     It  indulged  the  disposition  so  pow^- 


114  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

erfully  inherent  in  human  nature,  to  observe  'days  and 
times  and  seasons/  by  the  Sabbaths  and  feasts,  and  by 
occasional  fasts,  originally  only  a  symbol  of  ordinary 
mourning,  but  afterwards  invested  with  a  religious 
character  (Isa.  Iviii ;  Joel  ii.  12).  It  commended  aveng- 
ing and  sanguinary  zeal,  especially  in  the  punishment 
of  blasphemy  (Lev.  xxiv.  14;  Deut.  xiii.  9).  It  sanc- 
tioned the  ^^lex  talionis,^'  life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth 
for  tooth  (Exod.  xxi.  23,  24),  that  most  perfect  idea  of 
retributive  justice  to  the  uncivilized  mind;  and,  in  gen- 
eral, it  connected  the  idea  of  punishment  with,  that  of 
vengeance  and  satisfaction,  the  most  congenial  to  a  bar- 
barous apprehension.  If  it  restricted  marriages  within 
certain  degrees  of  kindred,  it  at  least  connived  at  po- 
lygamy (Exod.  xxi.  10;  Deut.  xxi.  15;  Judg.  viii.  30, 
&c. ;  Neandefs  Life  of  Christ,  translation,  p.  252,  Bohn's 
ed.),  and  allowed  a  law  of  divorce  suited  to  '  the  hard- 
ness of  their  hearts '  (Matt.  xix.  8).  On  the  other  hand, 
it  visited  the  violation  of  conjugal  fidelity  in  the  se- 
verest manner,  punishing  fornication  in  married  per- 
sons with  death  by  stoning  (Deut.  xxii.  22  ;  Lev.  xx. 
10).  It  fully  recognized  and  upheld  slavery"  (Lev. 
XXV.  44,  &c.). 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  115 


CHAPTEE   XL 
The  Quaker  and  the  Puritan. 

The  principles  of  Penn  with  respect  to  the  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  were  those  of  Bar- 
clay (see  the  extract  from  the  ^^  Apology,''  ante,  p.  95), 
and  are  as  widely  apart  from  the  Doctor's  as  are  the 
poles. 

Mark  the  language  of  Penn's  law  of  1G82.*     The 

*  The  following  is  taken  from  an  authentic  copy,  and  forms  a 
part  of  the  'Great  Law,'  or  body  of  acts  passed  at  Chester,  in 
December,  1682,  in  the  beginning  of  Penn's  administration. 

The  sentiments  expressed  are  so  liberal,  and  so  strongly  in  con- 
trast with  the  legislation  of  the  other  Colonies  and  Provinces, 
that  we  deem  it  excusable  to  give  space  to  its  insertion. 

Chap.  I.  ^  I.  Concerning  Liberty  op  Conscience. 

"  Almighty  God,  being  only  Lord  of  Conscience,  Father  of 
Lights  and  Spirits,  and  the  Author  as  well  as  Object  of  all  divine 
knowledge,  faith  and  worship,  who  only  can  enlighten  the  Minds, 
and  persuade  and  convince  the  understandings  of  people,  in  due 
Reverence  to  His  Sovereignty  over  the  Souls  of  Mankind,  Beit  En- 
acted, &c..  That  no  person,  now,  or  at  any  time  hereafter.  Living 
in  this  Province,  who  shall  Confess  and  acknowledge  One  Al- 
mighty God  to  be  the  Creator,  Upholder,  and  Ruler  of  the  world, 
and  that  professeth,  him  or  herself,  obliged  in  Conscience  to  Live 
peaceably  and  quietly  under  the  Civil  government,  shall,  in  any 
Case,  be  molested  or  prejudiced  for  his  or  her  conscience,  per- 
suasion, or  practice. 

"  Nor  shall  he  or  she,  at  any  time,  be  compelled  to  frequent  or 


116  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

''good  example  of  the  primitive  Christians,"  and  the 
"  ease  of  the  creation,"  are  specially  mentioned,  while 
not  a  word  is  said  about  the  Doctor's  favorite  dogma — 
for  the  phrase  "perpetual  moral  obligation  of  the  fourth 
commandment,"  and  the  use  of  the  word  "  Sabbath," 
are  carefully  excluded.  And  what  is  equally  remark- 
able, no  penalty  is  designated  for  the  violation  of  the 
statute. 

The  Doctor  is  complaisant,  and  evidently  gratified 
because  Penn  thus  "records  his  estimation  of  the  Sab- 
bath" (p.  125).  He  is  so  happy  to  have  the  founder  of 
Pennsylvania  apparently  on  his  side,  that  he  brings 
him  into  his  councils  without  scrutiny  of  the  plainness 
of  his  garb,  or  the  liberality  of  his  princij^les. 

The  significant  omission  of  any  allusion  to  the  fourth 
commandment  in  the  use  of  the  word  Sabbath,  cannot 
be  overlooked.  The  Doctor  must,  however,  say  some- 
maintain  any  religious  worship,  place,  or  ministry  whatever,  con- 
trary to  his  or  her  mind,  but  shall  freely  and  full}'-  enjoy  his  or 
her  Christian  Liberty  in  that  respect,  without  any  interruption 
or  reflexion. 

"  And  if  any  person  shall  Abuse  or  deride  any  other  for  his  or 
her  different  persuasion  and  practice  in  matter  of  religion,  such 
person  shall  be  Looked  upon  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace,  and  be 
punished  accordingly. 

"  But  to  the  End  that  Looseness,  Irreligion,  and  Atheism  may 
not  creep  in,  under  pretence  of  Conscience  in  this  Province,  Be 
it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid,  that  according  to 
the  example  of  the*  primitive  Christians,  and  for  the  ease  of  the 
Creation,  every  first  day  of  the  week,  called  the  Lord's  Day, 
people  shall  abstain  from  their  Usual  and  Common  Toil  and  La- 
bour ;  That,  whether  masters,  parents,  children,  or  servants,  they 
may  the  better  dispose  themselves  to  read  the  Scriptures  of  truth 
at  home,  or  to  frequent  such  meetings  of  Religious  worship  abroad 
as  may  best  suit  their  respective  persuasions." 

From  the  Great  Law  adopted  at  Chester,  7th  10th  mo.  1682. 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  117 

thing,  and  accordingly  observes:  "  lie,  Penn,  does  not 
use  the  word  Sabbath,  nor  the  word  Sunday;  but  first 
day  of  the  w^eek,  and  the  Lord's  Day,  both  Scriptural 
epithets.  So  let  it  stand  "  (p.  126).  And  so  it  shall 
sta7id  against  the  Doctor,  but  the  Doctor  does  not  stand. 
The  ground  slips  from  under  his  feet,  and  he  is  hoisted 
by  his  own  petard.  He  gives  up  the  vital  point  of  the 
whole  controversy — Penn's  avoidance  of  the  word 
"Sabbath,"  meant,  as  we  shall  see,  all  of  Penn's  faith  on 
this  subject. 

We  imagine  the  Doctor,  when  we  have  proceeded  a 
little  further,  will  feel  surprised  at  the  company  he  has 
been  keeping,  and  blame  the  innocency  of  his  heart  for 
the  expression  of  such  strong  terms  of  admiration  for 
a  law  which  he  has  thus  been  betrayed  into  eulogizing. 
Had  he  read  Penn's  writings,  or  consulted  the  Colonial 
Eecords,  he  would  not  have  hauled  down  his  flag  upon 
which  the  word  "Sabbath"  was  inscribed,  to  flaunt 
another  with  a  diff'erent  inscription. 

In  the  Colonial  Eecords  he  would  have  found  that 
at  the  meetings  of  the  Executive  Council,  over  which 
Penn,  in  person,  presided,  ^^  Saturday''  is  called  ^^  Sab- 
bath," as  for  example,  "  die  Sabbathi,  27th  January, 
1699,  1700;"  "die  Sabbathi,  3d  February,  1699,  1700;'^ 
"  die  Sabbathi,  1st  June,  1700,"  &c.  (1  Col.  Eec,  510, 591, 
593.) 

And  had  he  read  Penn's  writings,  he  would  have 
found  the  plainest  and  most  direct  expression  on  the 
utter  annihilation  of  the  fourth  commandment  as  a 
moi^al  obligation,  and  as  clear  an  exposition  of  the 
whole  subject,  as  can  be  found  in  the  compositions  of 
any  of  the  theologians  who  have  written  on  the  sub- 
ject.    His  trumpet  gives  no  uncertain  sound,  and  it 

11 


118  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

will  be  abundantly  manifest  why  he  so  carefully  avoided 
the  use  of  the  word  "  Sabbath." 

He  says,  "  To  call  any  day  of  the  week  a  Christian 
Sabbath,  is  not  Christian  but  Jewish;  give  us  one  scrip- 
ture for  it;  I  will  give  two  against  it.  Gal.  iv.  9,  10, 
11,  12,  where  the  apostle  makes  their  observation,  or 
preference,  of  days,  to  be  no  less  than  a  token  of  their 
turning  from  the  gospel.  Also,  Col.  ii.  16  :  an  outward 
Sabbath,  a  keeping  of  a  day,  to  be  but  a  shadow ;  and 
that  Christians  ought  not  to  be  judged  for  rejecting 
such  custom;  for  this  very  reason  the  Protestant 
churches  beyond  the  seas  generally  deny  the  morality  of 
the  first  day,  counting  all  days  alike  in  themselves,  only 
they  have  respect  to  the  first  day,  as  an  apostolical 
custom,  and  think  it  convenient  to  give  one  day  of 

rest  from  labor  to  man  and  beast  each  week 

In  short,  though  we  assert  but  one  Christian  Sabbath, 
and  believe  that  to  be  the  everlasting  day  of  rest  from  all 
our  own  works^  to  worship  and  enjoy  Grod  in  the  newness 
of  the  spirit;  yet  'tis  well  known  that  we  both  meet 
upon  the  first  day  in  the  week,  and  behave  ourselves 
with  as  an  inoff*ensive  a  conversation  as  any  of  our 
Sabbatarian  adversaries''  .  .  .  (Note  to  John  Faldo's  Vin- 
dication— Penn's  Works,  First  Folio  Edition,  vol.  ii.  p. 
379,  London,  1726.) 

Penn  is,  if  possible,  still  more  emphatic  in  the  asser- 
tion of  his  convictions  in  a  treatise  also  written  in 
1673,  entitled  ^^  Wisdom  justified  of  her  Children  from  the 
Ignorance  and  Calumny  of  H.  Hallywell,"  &c.,  ch.  iv.  §  1. 
"  Of  the  Sabbath-day." 

Hallywell  accuses  the  Familists  and  Quakers  of 
making  no  distinction  between  "Sabbath"  and  any 
other  day,  and  of  following  their  usual  trades  on  that 
day. 


THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION.  119 

To  which  Penn  re])lies,  that  if  the  Familists  did  so, 
it  was  nothing  to  the  Quakers.  "And  to  say,"  he  re- 
marks, "that  we  many  times  follow  our  usual  trades 
on  that  day,  is  a  plain  untruth;  the  whole  world  knows 
better,  though  we  do  not  Judaize  ;  for  worship  was  not 
made  for  time,  but  time  for  worship;  nor  is  there  any 
day  holy  of  itself,  though  holy  things  may  be  per- 
formed upon  a  day." 

"  But  he  (Hallywell)  tells  us,  yes ;  for  the  fourth  com- 
mandment being  as  moral  as  the  rest,  and  that  requiring  a 
Sabbath-day,  is  perpetuated  also. 

^'Answer.  But  this  hurts  us  not,  since  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath is  not  observed  by  the  Church  of  England.  But  if 
a  Sabbath-day  be  moral  because  mentioned  in  the 
fourth  commandment;  then  because  the  Jeios'  seventh 
day  is  there  particularly  mentioned,  their  Sabbath  must 
be  only  moral,  and  consequently  unalterable. 

"But,"  says  he,  "No;  for  that  the  apostles  and  suc- 
ceeding church  of  God,  may  very  reasonably  dispose 
of  us  in  matters  of  this  nature ;  and  it  is  obligatory 
from  the  ten  commandments,  every  one  of  which  is 
moral,  and  binds  all  Christians  still ;  and  therefore  the 
Church  of  England  (though  these  rebellious  Quakers 
disown  their  mother)  doth  make  it  part  of  her  liturgy. 

"  Answer.  If  it  be  as  moral  as  all  the  rest,  as  it  must  be 
if  it  be  moral,  because  of  its  being  there,  they  could  no 
more  dispense  with  it,  than  with  any  other  command- 
ment. To  call  that  day  moral,  and  make  it  alterable, 
is  ridiculous.  'Tis  true,  the  apostles  met  upon  the 
first  day,  and  not  on  the  seventh  ;  but  as  that  released 
118  from  any  pretended  morality  of  the  seventh,  so  nei- 
ther did  it  confer  any  morality  upon  the  first ;  yea,  so 
far  were  they  from  it,  that  not  one  speaks  any  such 
thing;  but  Paid  much  the  contrary:  Let  no  man  judge 


120  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

you  in  meats  or  in  drinks^  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or 
of  new  moons,  or  of  the  Sabbath-days,  which  are  a  shadow 
of  things  to  come,  but  the  body  is  of  Christ.  Col.  ii.  17,  18. 
The  outward  Sabbath  was  typical  of  the  great  rest  of 
the  gospel,  which  such  come  to  who  cease  from  their 
own  work,  and  in  whom  the  works  of  God's  new  crea- 
tion come  to  be  accomplished. 

''And  though  I  should  acknowledge  the  other  com- 
mands to  be  moral,  3^ea,  and  times  too,  both  respecting 
God's  worshij^,  and  the  creature's  rest;  yet  there  is  no 
more  reason  for  the  morality  of  that  day,  because 
amongst  those  commandments,  than  for  the  ceremoni- 
ousness  and  abrogation  of  several  moral  precepts,  be- 
cause scattered  up  and  down  among  the  ceremonial 
laws,  and  recorded  in  Leviticus. 

"I  grant  that  the  apostles  met  on  that  day;  but 
must  it,  therefore,  be  moral !  Certaiuly  the  Scripture's 
silence  in  this  particular  must  either  conclude  a  great 
neglect  against  those  holy  men  in  not  recommending 
and  enjoying  more  expressly  both  water,  bread,  wine 
and  holy  days  in  their  several  epistles  to  the  churches; 
or  warrant  us  in  our  belief  concerning  the  temporari- 
ness  of  these  things.  Let  our  adversary  reproach  us 
not  for  not  believing  that  to  be  durable,  w^hich  was 
wearing  off  and  vanishing  in  those  days ;  but  soberly 
consider,  that  the  practice  of  the  best  men,  especially 
in  such  cases,  is  no  institution,  though  sometimes  it 
may  be  an  example.  But  I  perceive  he  makes  bold, 
like  an  irreverent  son,  with  his  ghostly  fathers,  who, 
through  his  reflections  upon  us,  severely  rebuke  them. 
Has  he  so  quickly  forgot  the  Book  of  Sports,  and  who 
put  it  out;  when  not  to  propjhane  this  Sabbath  with  dancings, 
riots  and  revels,  had  been  enough  to  render  a  man  an  enemy 
to  Ccesar,  and  a  schismatical  Puritan  to  the  Church  f    If  he 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  121 

be  not  satisfy'd  with  this,  I  refer  him  to  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes, Bp.  Ironside  and  Dr.  Peter  Ileylin,  concerning  the 
non-morality  of  the  Sabbath  ;  and  a  great  wonder  it  is, 
that  John  Calvin  and  Peter  Heylin  should  be  of  one 
opinion  on  anything."  (Id.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  479,  480.) 

It  is  curious,  though,  that  the  Doctor,  whose  senti- 
ments accord  w^th  those  of  the  Puritans  in  all  their 
severit}^,  should  have,  as  a  witness,  summoned  Penn, 
for,  had  that  eminent  "  Quaker"  or  any  of  the  same 
faith  have  visited  Boston  a  second  time,  after  a  warn- 
ing to  depart,  he  would  have  suffered  upon  Boston 
Common  the  fate  of  poor  Mary  Dyer.* 

That  simplicity  of  dress  and  speech,  which  seem  to 
have  w^on  the  Doctor's  tender  confidence,  so  that  from  a 
controversialist  he  becomes  a  courtier,  would  have  been 
Penn's  surest  source  of  condemnation  with  the  dread 
tribunal  of  Boston.  The  Puritan  W'ho  had  suffered  for 
opinion's  sake  does  not  seem  to  have  had  his  heart 
warmed  towards  the  gentle,  unresenting,  unresisting 
Quaker.  With  one  it  was  "  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth 
for  a  tooth,"  with  the  other  obedience  to  the  Saviour's 
injunction  of  submission  under  injuries.  The  one  did 
not  become  the  gentler  under  persecutions,  but  the 
other  became  forgiving,  charitable,  catholic,  the  ardent 
friend  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

These  were  the  terms  used  towards  the  inoffensive 
disciples  of  George  Fox.  These  "  blasphemous  here- 
tics," "  this  pernicious  sect,"  with  "  their  dangerous  and 
horrid  tenets."  To  entertain  a  Quaker  was  to  be 
whipt — "  Plymouth  Records,'' — and  the  punishment  was 
graduated   to    the   offence.      A    male    Quaker   who  a 

*  It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  severe  laws,  against  the  Quak- 
ers, may  have  been  repealed  in  1682;  but  if  the  fact,  it  does  not 
affect  the  argument. 

11* 


122  THE    SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

second  time  offended,  by  coming  into  the  jurisdiction, 
should,  for  the  first  offence,  "have  one  of  his  ears  cut 
off,  and  be  kept  at  work  in  the  house  of  correction  till 
he  can  be  sent  away  at  his  own  charge,  and  for  the 
second  to  have  the  other  ear  cut  off;"  a  woman,  for  the 
same  offence,  was  to  be  "  severely  whipped,"  and  kept 
at  the  house  of  correction,  and  for  the  third  offence 
"  they  shall  have  their  tongues  bored  through  with  a 
hot  iron."  Massachusetts  Records^  Oct.  14th,  1657. 

The  culmination  of  punishment  was  death.  One  of 
the  reasons  given  for  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  1682, 
by  the  first  Assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  which  the  Doc- 
tor so  much  lauds,  was  that  all  "  may  better  dispose 
themselves  to  read  the  Scriptures  of  truth  at  home,  or 
to  frequent  such  religions  meetings  abroad  as  may  best 
suit  their  respective  persuasions,"  leaving  an  alterna- 
tive. 

How  did  the  Doctor's  friends  in  New  England,  or 
rather  those  who  held  the  same  scriptural  notions 
which  he  now  entertains,  treat  those  who  were  inclined 
to  worship)  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  con- 
science ?  Why,  by  banishment  upon  pain  of  death ;  they 
were  styled  the  "  pernicious  sect,"  ..."  who  do  take 
upon  themselves  to  change  and  alter  the  received  laud- 
able customs  of  our  nation  in  giving  civil  respect  to 
equals,  in  reverence  to  superiors,  whose  actions  tend  to 
undermine  the  authority  of  civil  government,  so  as  to 
destroy  the  order  of  the  churches,  by  denying  all  estab- 
lished forms  of  worship,  and  by  withdrawing  from  the 
orderly  church  assemblies  allowed  and  approved  by  all 
orthodox  j^rofessors  of  the  truth."  Laws  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Edition  of  1672. 

The  laws  of  New  Plymouth  were  very  rigid,  follow- 
ing Deuteronomy,  Numbers,  &c.,  in  several  particulars: 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  123 

''Any  child,  above  sixteen  years  old,"  "smiting  their 
natiiralfather  or  mother,"  "shall  be  put  to  death;"  "pro- 
faning the  Sabbath  or  Lord's  day  by  doing  unnecessary 
servile  work,"  "  unnecessarj^  travailing,"  "or  by  sports 
and  recreations,"  was  punished  by  fine  or  public  whip- 
ping, and  if  the  offence  was  "proudly,  presumptuously 
and  with  a  high  hand  committed,"  the  penalty  was 
death  !  or  such  other  punishment  as  the  court  might  in- 
flict. The  Capital  Laws  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth, 
revised  and  j)ublished  by  order  of  the  General  Court,  in 
June,  1671.  ^qq  Blue  Laws  of  Massachusetts.  Hartford, 
1838,  pp.  17,  55. 

By  the  laws  of  Connecticut,  without  just  cause  the 
"  withdrawing  one  self  from  hearing  the  public  ministry 
of  the  Word." 

"Doing  servill  work"  on  Sunday,  "such  as  are  not 
workes  of  piety,"  ka.,  "prophane  discourse  or  talke, 
rude  and  unreverent  behavioure,"  were  all  punishable 
offences.     Blue  Laws  of  Connecticut,^.  108. 

In  1776  the  law,  with  respect  to  non-attendance  on 
divine  worship,  was  regarded  as  having  grown  obsolete. 

But  these  were  still  held  to  be  punishable  offences: 
"  Presence  at  a  concert  of  music,  travelling,  a  collection 
of  persons,  or,  in  the  words  of  the  law,  companies  meet- 
ing in  the  street  or  elsewhere,'^  "  going  from  home  un- 
less to  attend  a  place  of  public  worship  or  some  work 
of  necessity  or  mercy."  No  vessel  was  allowed  to  leave 
port  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  nor  to  pass  any  town 
where  public  worship  was  maintained.  See  "  A  System 
of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut,''  by  Zephaniah  Swift,  vol.  ii., 
p.  325.  Windham,  1796.  See  also  Compilation  of  Ear- 
liest Laws  of  Connecticut.     Hartford,  1822. 

The  following  were  punishable  offences  by  the  laws 
of  Massachusetts : 


124  THE   SUNDAY   QUESTION. 

Travelling  on  the  Lord's  day,  ''except  by  some  ad- 
versity they  were  belated  and  forced  to  lodge  in  the 
Woods,  Wilderness  or  Highways  the  JS'ight  before." 
Act  of  4  William  &  Mary.  Acts  &  Laws  of  Prov.  Mass. 
Bay,  N.  E.     Boston,  1762,  p.  14. 

"  Persons  walking,  recreating  and  disporting  them- 
selves in  the  Streets,  Wharffs  or  Fields  in  the  time  of 
public  worship."     Act  of  1711,  Id.  185. 

One  month's  neglect,  without  good  cause,  of  attend- 
ance upon  place  of  public  worship.  Act  of  1716,  Id. 
211. 

The  reader  is  further  referred  to  the  reprint  of  the 
"  General  Laws  and  Liberties  of  Conecticut  Colonic," 
&c.,  1673.     Edited  by  George  Brinley.     Hartford,  1865. 

And  to  the  reprint  of  "  New  Haven's  Settling,"  &c. 
hj  Charles  J.  Hoadley.     Hartford,  1858. 

Such  were  some  of  the  laws  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers . 
and  of  the  New  England  pioneers  who,  notwithstand- 
ing their  hardness  and  despotic  temper,  have  still 
claims  to  our  regard.  We  should  be  better  pleased, 
however,  as  would,  doubtless,  many  others,  to  see  upon 
Forefathers'  Day  those  claims,  about  which  there  is  no 
dispute,  for  the  sake  of  the  virtuous  example,  enlarged 
upon  with  even  greater  earnestness,  and  the  vices  of 
bigotry,  intolerance,  and  spiritual  pride,  about  which 
there  is  also  no  dispute,  brought  a  little  more  into  the 
foreground,  for  the  sake  of  the  warning  example. 

But,  what  a  curious  metamorphosis  has  the  lapse  of 
two  centuries  wrought.  The  descendants  of  the  Puritans 
are  now  the  strenuous  champions  of  the  sacred  right  of 
I)rivate  judgment,  the  stanchest  advocates  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  and  wherever  they  go  they  bear  with 
them  the  blessings  of  thrift,  enterprise,  and  education. 
Boston  tolerant,  sets  an  example  to  Philadelphia  in- 


THE   SUNDAY    QUESTION.  125 

tolerant,  upon  the  very  question  on  wliicli  of  all  others, 
Penn,  and  his  associates  in  1682,  most  differed  from  the 
Bostonians  of  that  day. 

We  have  now  finished  the  task  which  we  had  as- 
signed ourselves.  If  we  have  quoted  largely,  it  was 
because  we  preferred  that  others  should  speak  rather 
than  we.  And  besides,  there  is  but  one  mode  of  calm- 
ing the  fears  of  the  timid,  and  of  inducing  inquiry  on 
their  part,  and  that  is  by  presenting  the  arguments  of 
the  leading  authorities  of  the  Church.  If  a  positive 
assertion  of  Dr.  Junkin  is  met  by  the  positive  assertion 
of  one  greater  than  he,  no  exertions  which  he  may  put 
forth  will  preserve  an  equilibrium,  the  beam  must  go 
up,  if  Calvin  and  Luther  are  in  the  opposite  scale;  such 
is  the  homage  man  invariably  pays  to  superiority  of 
intellect. 

It  is  to  be  lamented  that  theology,  like  the  law,  has 
become  a  science  of  precedents,  and  although  we  are 
told  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  yet  the  question  is  too 
often  put,  "What  does  this  or  that  commentator  say 
upon  this  or  that  passage?"  so  that  the  unlearned 
should  congratulate  himself,  when  the  more  learned 
range  themselves  on  that  side  which  to  his  mind  ap- 
pears the  just  and  obvious  one,  and  to  which  his  heart 
responds  as  the  cause  of  truth. 

The  whole  subject  at  issue  turns  upon  the  binding 
force  of  the  fourth  commandment,  for  the  Sabbatarian 
sets  out  with  the  assertion  that  the  morality  of  the  fourth 
commandment  is  still  operative,  and  that  the  command 
therein  is  not  to  worship  God  at  all  times,  but  to  wor- 
ship him  on  a  particular  day,  wherein  consists  the 
morality  of  the  commandment.  The  reader  will  please 
not  forget  the  distinction,  namely,  that  the  Anti-sabba- 
tarian  does  not  dispute,  that  man  is  bound  to  worship 


126  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

his  Maker  at  all  times,  but  says  that  he  is  not  bound 
to  worship  him  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  only 
day  pointed  out  in  the  Decalogue. 

With  this  the  Sabbatarian  immediately  shifts  his 
ground^  when  you  press  him,  and  tells  you  that  he  ad- 
mits that  man  is  not  bound  to  keep  the  fourth  command- 
ment so  far  as  relates  to  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day;  that  it  has  ceased  under  the  new  dispensation, 
and  you  need  no  longer  pay  the  least  respect  to  it.  Nay, 
further,  that  it  is  Judaizing,  and  in  a  sense  discredit- 
able in  a  Christian  to  pay  the  least  regard  to  it. 

If  you  then  ask  him,  why  he  so  insists  upon  the  fourth 
commandment,  coupling  in  its  support  text  upon  text 
from  Leviticus,  Deuteronomy,  &c.,  and  that  all  this 
seems  insincere,  and  also  inconsistent  with  his  pro- 
fessions to  disregard  it,  he  replies,  that  you  mistake 
him,  that  he  does  not  say  you  may  disregard  it,  but  that 
when  w^e  repeat  the  commandment  that  the  Lord  blessed 
the  seventh  day,  we  must,  in  our  minds,  substitute  the 
word  FIRST  day,  and  say  that  "  he  hallowed  it,"  because 
the  first  day  was  substituted  by  the  apostles  for  the 
seventh  day ! 

Here,  you  remind  him,  as  to  what  Calvin  says,  that 
"  this  is  only  changing  the  day  in  contempt  of  the  Jews, 
while  you  retain  the  same  opinion  of  the  holiness  of  a 
day"  (see  ante,  page  91),  and  ask  him  for  his  authority, 
as  to  any  command  of  substitution,  whereby  the  seventh 
day,  which  was  commanded  to  be  kept  holy  for  special 
reasons,  should  be  thus  changed  for  the  first  day.  He 
is  unable  to  give  you  any  authority  of  Christ,  or  of  the 
apostles,  but  points  you  out  sundry  texts,  wherein  to 
him,  he  says,  it  is  clear,  that  the  disciples  met  on  the 
first  day  for  worship.  (See  aiite,  pp.  37,  88,  &c.)  It  is 
thus  you  are  treated,  and  if  you  are  not  satisfied  with 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  127 

his  mere  assertion,  you  are  pronounced  an  infidel,  a  dis- 
believer in  the  Scriptures ;  for  his  mind  continually  recurs 
to  the  Judaizing  view  of  the  case,  and  in  this  rut  his  intel- 
lect ever  runs,  and  if  for  a  moment  lifted  out  of  it,  is  but 
fated  to  fall  into  it  again.  Penn,  in  his  usual  forcible 
way,  well  describes  this  mental  infirmity,  when  he  says, 
as  we  have  seen,  "  ^o  call  that  day"  (i.  e.  the  seventh) 
"  MORAL,  and  make  it  alterable,  is  ridiculous." 

Some  may  doubt  how  any  apostolic  command  could 
dispense  with  the  obligation  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment (were  it  moral,  when  in  truth  it  is  simply  ceremo- 
nial), any  more  than  that  an  apostolic  command  could 
dispense  with  any  of  the  nine,  which  are  admitted  to 
be  moral,  and  for  reasons  irrespective  of  the  fact  that 
they  are  incorporated  in  the  Decalogue. 

But  this  cannot  be  disputed,  that  nothing  short  of  an 
apostolic  command  unequivocally  expressed  (and  so 
expressed,  were  that  possible,  as  to  harmonize  with 
Paul's  declaration  to  the  Eomans — xiv.  5,  6),  to  keep 
the  fourth  commandment,  by  substituting  the  first  for 
the  seventh  day,  would  be  binding  on  mankind. 


We  have  now  shown  the  perfect  lawfulness,  in  a  re- 
ligious point  of  view,  of  unrestrained  locomotion  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  whether  the  freedom  of  phys- 
ical action  relates  to  ourselves,  or  to  the  running  of 
passenger  cars  upon  the  street. 

It,  therefore,  follows  that  all  legislation,  adverse  to 
this  right,  is  as  unconstitutional  as  it  is  iniquitous.  It 
is  a  shallow  pretence,  to  say,  that  this  despotic  re- 
striction must  find  its  justification,  in  the  right  of  all 
States  to  impose  that  which  tends  to  the  alleged  promo- 


128  THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION. 

tion  of  the  public  good.  This  is  begging  the  question, 
and  is  merely  the  enforcement  of  the  plea,  by  which 
tyranny,  be  it  civil  or  religious,  has  ever  sought  to 
palliate  its  action.  History  is  full  of  such  examples  ; 
they  are  the  dark  spots  upon  the  sands  of  time,  where 
blood  has  been  shed,  where  the  struggle  between  right 
and  wrong  has  taken  place  too  often,  alas !  in  favor  of 
the  wrong. 

If,  therefore,  there  is  no  inherent  immorality — if  that 
which  it  is  sought  to  prohibit  upon  one  day  of  the 
week,  is  morally  lawful,  nay,  as  we  have  said,  perhaps 
commendable,  to  do  upon  any  other,  no  legislation  can 
make  it  criminal  or  punishable.  The  whole  question 
turns  upon  the  morality  or  immorality  of  the  act  of 
volition  sought  to  be  restrained,  and  in  this  distinction 
there  is  that  well-defined  boundary,  which,  if  over- 
leaped, makes  legislation  unlawful  and  tyrannous. 

Man  in  society  surrendered  certain  rights  which,  in 
a  state  of  nature,  he  enjoyed,  and  others  he  did  not 
surrender,  because  inalienable.  He  never  surrendered 
that  which  related  to  the  exercise  of  volition,  or  gave 
others  the  right  to  declare  that  immoral,  improper,  and 
to  be  prohibited,  upon  any  one  day  of  the  seven,  which 
was  moral  and  proper,  and  not  to  be  prohibited  upon 
any  of  the  six  days  of  the  week. 

But  the  advocate  of  prohibition  says,  "  1  have  a  right 
to  worship  God  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  my  conscience,  and  you  have  no 
right  to  disturb  me  in  its  enjoyment."  To  which  he, 
who  seeks  the  country  by  his  own  or  a  public  convey- 
ance, replies,  "  I  do  not  wish  to  disturb  your  rights,  or 
to  invade  your  house  of  worship,  or  to  impose  any 
other  creed  than  that  which  you  have  chosen,  /prefer 
worshipping  God  at  all  times,  or  I  prefer  to  worship 


THE    SUNDAY    QUESTION.  129 

him  some  other  day  of  the  week,  or  in  the  early  morn- 
ing before  your  service  may  begin,  but  you  must  not 
disturb  me  in  the  enjoyment  of  my  right,  if  in  its  pur- 
suit I  use  such  lawful  means  as  are  within  my  reach. 
It  is  possible  that  in  the  pursuit,  I  may  disturb  you^ 
but  not  others  whose  nervous  sensibilities  may  not  be 
so  acute  ;  but  if  I  am  seeking  a  legitimate  end  by  legit- 
imate means,  and  creating  no  greater  confusion  than 
is  absolutely  unavoidable,  and  that  the  use  of  the  most 
available  mechanical  contrivances  may  permit,  and  all 
this  peaceably  and  without  malice,  I  infringe  no  privi- 
lege of  yours.  If  you  have  the  right  to  restrain  my 
means  of  locomotion,  whether  in  walking  or  riding,  in 
driving  or  in  being  driven,  you  may,  if  you  have  the 
power  and  choose,  limit  me  to  the  confines  of  my  own 
dwelling,  and  revive  against  my  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erties the  most  odious  laws  that  ever  disgraced  a  gov- 
ernment that  was  not  a  despotism." 

In  conclusion,  we  remark  that  right  must  ever  triumph 
in  the  end;  senseless  bigotry  may  retard  reform,  but  it 
never  yet  won  the  day  against  enlightened  public  sen- 
timent. 

Let  all  who  now  despond  take  courage,  for  the  hour 
of  deliverance  draweth  nigh. 


12 


APPENDIX, 


The  following  extracts,  of  too  great  length  for  insertion  in  the 
hody  of  the  work,  are  from  the  writings  of  the  late  Rev.  Frederick 
W.  Robertson,  incumbent  of  Trinity  Chapel,  Brighton,  England, 
a  man  beloved  by  all  who  knew  him  for  the  consistent  purity  of  his 
life,  and  esteemed  for  the  scholarship,  fearlessness,  and  ability  of 
his  pulpit  ministrations,  but  whose  career  was  brief.  He  died  in 
August,  1853,  at  the  age  of  thirty-seven. 

The  American  editor  of  his  sermons  remarks  of  him  : 

"The  Rev.  Frederick  W.  Robertson, — whose  beautiful  life  and 
early  death  have  left  the  deepest  impression  of  love,  admiration, 
and  regret  on  all  who  knew  him, — finished  his  career  on  the  very 
threshold  of  middle  age,  having  exercised  his  sacred  calling,  during 
the  last  years  of  his  life,  at  Brighton,  where  the  effect  of  his  ministry 
will  long  be  felt  by  all  classes,  and  where  the  seed  of  righteousness 
he  sowed  will  yield  increasing  harvests  when  all  personal  memory 
of  him  must  have  passed  away.  .  .  .  But,  beside  the  effect  pro- 
duced by  his  public  ministry  and  personal  intercourse  on  the  more 
educated  classes  who  came  within  his  influence,  Mr.  Robertson  ob- 
tained a  power  for  good  over  the  workingmen  and  mechanics  of 
Brighton,  which  makes  his  name  a  watchword  still  among  them, 
full  of  Divine  inspiration,  of  strength,  and  eflScacy.  His  deep  re- 
spect and  tender  love  for  humanity,  induced  him  and  enabled  him 
to  become  a  friend  to  the  laboring  population  of  the  city  where  he 
lived,  such  as  they  may  hardly  hope  in  each  of  their  individual 
lives  to  find  again. 

''  With  the  strongest  feelings  for  their  peculiar  wants,  he  had  a 
wise  and  true  perception  of  their  duties  and  compensations ;  his 
sympathy  for  them  never  betrayed  him  into  injustice  to  others, 


132  APPENDIX. 

and  the  temperate  soundness  and  manly  sobriety  of  his  judgment, 
prevented  his  genuine  and  deep  tenderness  of  feeling  from  ever  be- 
coming that  species  of  pseudo-philanthropy,  which,  in  its  cham- 
pionship of  the  rights  of  one  class  forgets  the  claims  of  all  men, 
and  becomes  a  bitter  sort  of  social  fanaticism,  which  has  nothing 
in  common  with  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

"  The  death  of  this  man  was  assuredly  his  own  exceeding  great 
reward.  To  all  who  knew  him,  it  must  be  a  lifelong  loss,  but  sadly 
softened  by  the  remembrance  of  his  excellence." 

Mr.  Robertson's  sermons,  which  are  not  excelled  by  any  similar 
compositions  for  boldness,  clearness,  and  comprehensiveness,  are 
read  by  a  constantly  increasing  circle  of  admirers.  The  discourse, 
from  which  we  quote,  is  upon  Romans  xiv.  5,  6,  with  which  text 
our  readers  will  have,  ere  this,  become  tolerably  familiar,  and  was 
preached  when  the  excitement  ran  very  high  in  England  upon  the 
proposal  for  opening  the  Crystal  Palace  upon  Sundays.  He  has 
the  courage  to  maintain  that  the  Apostle  means  just  what  he  says, 
that  every  day  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  Jewish  seventh  as 
the  Christian  first  day.  The  word  courage,  we  repeat,  because  we 
are  disposed  to  contrast  the  intrepidity  of  his  utterance,  and  which 
receives  an  impulse  from  the  fearless  spirit  of  the  great  Apostle 
himself,  with,  to  use  the  mildest  term,  the  timidity  of  many  other 
commentators  upon  the  sacred  text,  who,  wedded  to  a  preconceived 
theory,  or  fearful  to  alarm  the  prejudices  of  their  readers,  have 
either  passed  in  silence  a  portion  of  the  passage  in  question,  or  ap- 
prehensive that  the  frank  interpretation  of  the  remainder  would 
injure  what  they  choose  to  regard  as  the  cause  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, have  presented  the  less  obvious  for  the  plainer  explication  ; 
a  treatment,  which  in  this  scanning  and  keenly  critical  age,  when 
the  very  foundations  of  truth  are  undergoing  investigation  afresh, 
is  shortsighted  and  damaging  to  the  side  they  espouse,  to  morality, 
and  to  the  dearest  interests  of  religion  itself. 

Let  that  great  jury,  the  eager  generation  of  inquiring  minds, 
now  beginning  its  career,  earnest  in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  dis- 
posed to  question  rather  than  assent,  inclined  to  distrust  rather  than 
to  repose  confidence,  but  doubt  the  credibility  of  the  testimony 
offered  for  its  consideration  ;  let  it  suspect  an  inclination  to  suppress 
or  gloss  ;  let  it  believe  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  advocates  of  a  par- 
ticular theory,  the  appearance  of  consistency  demands  the  forced 


APPENDIX.  133 

construction  of  a  word  or  a  sentence,  and  the  moral  and  religious 
history  of  a  century  may  by  its  verdict  be  forever  cluinged. 

All  honor,  therefore,  to  that  candor  of  soul,  whose  purity  of 
Christian  motive  none  can  doubt,  which,  without  being  captious, 
speaks  forth  its  convictions  in  the  belief  that  truth  honestly  spoken 
cannot  harm. 

Extracts  from  a  Sermon  preached  on  Romans  xiv.  :  5,  6. 

"  It  has  been  maintained  that  the  Sabbath  is  a  Jewish  institution ; 
in  its  strictness,  at  all  events,  not  binding  on  a  Christian  community. 
It  has  been  urged  with  much  force  that  we  cannot  consistently  re- 
fuse to  the  poor  man,  publicly,  that  right  of  recreation  which,  pri- 
vately, the  rich  man  has  long  taken  without  rebuke,  and  with  no 
protest  on  the  part  of  the  ministers  of  Christ.  And  it  has  been 
said,  that  such  places  of  recreation  will  tend  to  humanize,  which,  if 
not  identical  with  Christianizing  the  population,  is  at  least  a  step 
towards  it. 

"  Upon  such  a  subject  where  truth  does  not  lie  upon  the  surface,  it 
cannot  be  out  of  place,  if  a  minister  of  Christ  endeavors  to  direct 
the  minds  of  his  congregation  towards  the  formation  of  an  opinion; 
not  dogmatically,  but  humbly,  remembering  always  that  his  own 
temptation  is,  from  his  very  position  as  a  clergyman,  to  view  such 
matters,  not  so  much  in  the  broad  light  of  the  possibilities  of  actual 
life,  as  with  the  eyes  of  a  recluse;  from  a  clerical  and  ecclesiastical, 
rather  than  from  a  large  and  human  point  of  view.  For  no  minis- 
ter of  Christ  has  a  right  to  speak  oracularly.  All  that  he  can  pre- 
tend to  do  is  to  give  his  judgment,  as  one  that  has  obtained  mercy 
of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful.  And  on  large  national  subjects  there 
is,  perhaps,  no  class  so  ill-qualified  to  form  a  judgment  with  breadth 
as  we,  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  accustomed  as  we  are, 
to  move  in  the  narrow  circle  of  those  who  listen  to  us  with  forbear- 
ance and  deference,  and  mixing  but  little  in  real  .life,  till  in  our 
cloistered  and  inviolable  sanctuaries  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  it  is 
one  thing  to  lay  down  rules  for  a  religious  clique,  and  another  to 
legislate  for  a  great  nation. 

..."  No  one,  I  believe,  who  would  read  St.  Paul's  own  writ- 
ings with  unprejudiced  mind,  could  fail  to  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  he  considered  the  Sabbath  abrogated  by  Christianity.  Not 
merely  in  its  stringency,  but  totally  repealed. 

12* 


134  APPENDIX. 

<*  Por  example,  see  Col.  ii.  16,  17 ;  observe,  he  counts  the  Sab- 
bath-day among  those  institutions  of  Judaism  which  were  shadows, 
and  of  which  Christ  was  the  realization,  the  substance,  or  '  body,' 
and  he  bids  the  Colossians  remain  indifferent  to  the  judgment  which 
would  be  pronounced  upon  their  non-observance  of  such  days. 
'Let  no  man  judge  you  with  respect  to  ...  .  the  Sabbath-days.' 
More  decisively  in  the  text.  Tor,  it  has  been  contended  that  in  the 
former  passage,  '  Sabbath-days  '  refers  simply  to  the  Jewish  Sab- 
baths, which  were  superseded  by  the  Lord's  day ;  and  that  the  Apos- 
tle does  not  allude  at  all  to  the  new  institution,  which  it  is  supposed 
had  superseded  it.  Here,  however,  there  can  be  no  such  ambiguity. 
'One  man  esteemeth  every  day  alike,'  and  he  only  says  let  him  be 
fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  *  Every  '  day  must  include  first 
days  as  well  as  last  days  of  the  week ;  Sundays  as  well  as  Satur- 
days. 

"  And  again  he  even  speaks  of  scrupulous  adherence  to  particular 
days,  as  if  it  were  giving  up  the  very  principle  of  Christianity. 
» Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years.  I  am  afraid 
of  you  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain,'  so  that  his  ob- 
jection was  not  to  Jewish  days,  but  to  the  very  principle  of  attaching 
intrinsic  sacredness  to  any  days.  All  forms  and  modes  of  particu- 
larizing the  Christian  life,  he  reckoned  as  bondage  under  the 
elements  or  alphabet  of  the  law.  And  this  is  plain  from  the  nature 
of  the  case.  He  struck  not  at  a  day,  but  a  principle  ,•  else,  if  with 
all  his  vehemence  and  earnestness,  he  only  meant  to  establish  a  new 
set  of  days  in  the  place  of  the  old,  there  is  no  intelligible  principle 
for  which  he  is  contending,  and  that  earnest  apostle  is  only  a 
champion  for  one  day  instead  of  another, — an  assertor  of  the  eter- 
nal sanctities  of  Sunday^  instead  of  the  eternal  sanctities  of  Saturday. 
Incredible,  indeed  /*  Let  us  then  understand  the  principle  on  which 
he  declared  the  repeal  of  the  Sabbath.  He  taught  that  the  blood 
of  Christ  cleansed  all  things  ;  therefore,  there  was  nothing  specially 
clean.  Christ  had  vindicated  all  for  God;  therefore,  there  was 
nothing  more  God's  than  another.  Por,  to  assert  one  thing  as  God's 
more  than  another,  is  by  implication  to  admit  that  other  to  be  less 
God's.  ...  In  early,  we  cannot  say  exactly  how  early  times,  the 
church  of  Christ  felt  the  necessity  of  substituting  something  in  place 

*'  *  The  italics  are  our  own. 


APPENDIX.  135 

of  ordinances  which  had  been  repealed.  And  the  Lord's  day  arose, 
not  a  day  of  compulsory  rest ;  not  such  a  day  at  all  as  modern 
Sabbatarians  suppose.  Not  a  Jewish  Sabbath  ;  rather  a  day  in  many 
respects  absolutely  contrasted  with  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

"For  the  Lord's  day  sprung,  not  out  of  a  transference  of  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  from  Saturday  to  Sunday,  but  rather  out  of  the  idea 
of  making  the  week  an  imitation  of  the  life  of  Christ.  With  the  early 
Christians,  the  great  conception  was  that  of  following  their  crucified 
and  risen  Lord  ;  they  set  as  it  were,  the  clock  of  time  to  the  epochs 
of  his  history.  Friday  represented  the  death  in  which  all  Chris- 
tians daily  die,  and  Sunday  the  resurrection  in  which  all  Christians 
daily  rise  to  a  higher  life.  What  Friday  and  Sunday  were  to  the 
week,  that  Good  Friday  and  Easter  Sunday  were  to  the  year.  And 
thus  in  larger  and  smaller  cycles,  all  time  represented  to  the  early 
Christians  the  mystery  of  the  cross  and  the  risen  life  hidden  in  hu- 
manity. And  as  the  sunflower  turns  from  morning  till  evening  to 
the  sun,  so  did  the  church  turn  forever  to  her  Lord;  transforming 
week  and  year  into  a  symbolical  representation  of  his  spiritual 
life. 

"Carefully  distinguish  this,  the  true  historical  view  of  the  origin 
of  the  Lord's  da}^,  from  a  mere  transference  of  a  Jewish  Sabbath 
from  one  day  to  another.  For  St.  Paul's  teaching  is  distinct  and 
clear,  that  the  Sabbath  is  annulled,  and  to  urge  the  observance  of 
the  day  as  indispensable  to  salvation,  was,  according  to  him,  to 
Judaize,  '  to  turn  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  where- 
unto  they  desired  to  be  in  bondage.' 

"The  second  ground  on  which  we  are  opposed  to  the  ultra  rigor  of 
Sabbath  observance,  especially  when  it  becomes  coercive,  is  the  dan- 
ger of  injuring  the  conscience.  It  is  wisely  taught  by  St.  Paul  that  he 
who  does  anything  with  offence,  i.  e.,  with  a  feeling  that  it  is  wrong: 
to  him  it  is  wrong,  even  though  it  be  not  wrong  abstractedly.  There- 
fore, it  is  always  dangerous  to  multiply  restrictions  and  requirements 
beyond  what  is  essential,  because  men  feeling  themselves  hemmed  in, 
break  the  artificial  barrier,  but  breaking  it  with  a  sense  of  guilt,  do 
thereby  become  hardened  in  conscience,  and  prepared  for  trans- 
gression against  commandments  which  are  divine  and  of  eternal 
obligation.  Hence,  it  is  that  the  criminal  has  so  often,  in  his  con- 
fessions, traced  his  deterioration  in  crime  to  the  first  step  of  break- 
ing the  Sabbath-day,  and  no  doubt  with  accurate  truth.     But  what 


136  '  APPENDIX. 

shall  we  infer  from  this  ?  Shall  we  infer,  as  is  so  often  done  upon 
the  platform  and  in  religious  books,  that  it  proves  the  everlasting 
obligation  of  the  Sabbath  ?  or,  shall  we,  with  a  far  truer  philosophy 
of  the  human  soul,  infer,  in  the  language  of  St.  Peter,  that  we  have 
been  laying  on  him  '  a  yoke  which  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were 
able  to  bear?' — in  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  that  the  '  motions  of  sin 
were  by  the  law,'  that  the  rigorous  rule  was  itself  the  stimulating, 
moving  cause  of  the  sin ;  and  that  when  the  young  man,  worn  out 
with  his  week's  toil,  first  stole  out  into  the  fields,  to  taste  the  fresh 
breath  of  a  spring-day,  he  did  it  with  a  vague,  secret  sense  of  trans- 
gression, and  that  having,  as  it  were,  drawn  his  sword  in  defiance 
against  the  established  code  of  the  religious  world,  he  felt  that  from 
thence-forward  there  was  for  him  no  return,  and  so  he  became  an 
outcast,  his  sword  against  every  man  and  every  man's  sword  against 
him  ?  -  I  believe  this  to  be  the  true  account  of  the  matter ;  and  be- 
lieving it,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  the  false,  Jewish  notions  of  the 
Sabbath-day  which  are  prevalent  have  been  exceedingly  pernicious 
to  the  morals  of  the  country. 

"Lastly,  I  remind  you  of  the  danger  of  mistaking  a  'positive' 
law  for  a  moral  one.  The  danger  is  that  proportionably  to  the 
vehemence  with  which  the  law  positive  is  enforced,  the  sacredness 
of  moral  laws  is  neglected.  A  positive  law,  in  theological  lan- 
guages, is  a  law  laid  down  for  special  purposes,  and  corresponds 
with  statute  laws  in  things  civil.  Thus  laws  of  quarantine  and 
laws  of  excise,  depend  for  their  force  upon  the  will  of  the  legisla- 
ture, and  when  repealed  are  binding  no  more.  But  a  moral  law  is 
one  binding  forever,  which  a  statute  law  may  declare,  but  can 
neither  make  nor  unmake. 

"Now  when  men  are  rigorous  in  the  enforcement  and  reverence 
paid  to  laws  positive,  the  tendency  is  to  a  corresponding  indifl"erence 
to  the  laws  of  eternal  right.  The  written  supersedes  in  their  hearts 
the  moral.  The  mental  history  of  the  ancient  Pharisees,  who  ob- 
served the  Sabbath,  and  tithed  mint,  anise,  and  cumin,  neglecting 
justice,  mercy,  and  truth,  is  the  history  of  a  most  dangerous  but 
universal  tendency  of  the  human  heart.  And  so,  many  a  man 
whose  heart  swells  with  what  he  thinks  pious  horror  when  he  sees 
the  letter  delivered  or  the  train  run  upon  the  Sabbath-day,  can  pass 
through  the  streets  at  night  undepressed  and  unshocked  by  the  evi- 
dences of  the  wide-spreading  profligacy  which  has  eaten  deep  into 


APPENDIX.  137 

his  country's  heart.  And  many  a  man  who  would  gaze  upon  the 
domes  of  a  Crystal  Palace,  rising  above  the  trees,  with  somewhat 
the  same  feeling  with  which  he  would  look  on  a  temple  dedicated 
to  Juggernaut,  and  who  would  fancy  that  something  of  the  spirit 
of  an  ancient  prophet  was  burning  in  his  bosom,  when  his  lips  pro- 
nounced the  Woe  1  Woe !  of  a  coming  doom,  would  sit  calmly  in 
a  social  circle  of  English  life  and  scarcely  feel  uneasy  in  listening 
to  its  uncharitableness  and  its  slanders ;  would  hear  without  one 
throb  of  indignation,  the  common  dastardly  condemnation  of  the 
weak  for  the  sins  which  are  venial  in  the  strong;  would  survey  the 
relations  of  the  rich  and  poor  in  this  country,  and  remain  calmly 
satisfied  that  there  is  nothing  false  in  them,  unbrotherly,  and 
wrong.  No,  my  brethren  I  let  us  think  clearly  and  strongly  on 
this  matter.  It  may  be  that  God  has  a  controversy  with  this  peo- 
ple. It  may  be,  as  they  say,  that  our  Father  will  chasten  us  by 
the  sword  of  the  foreigner.  But  if  He  does,  and  if  judgments  are 
in  store  for  our  country,  they  will  fall,  not  because  the  correspond- 
ence of  the  land  is  carried  on  upon  the  Sabbath  day;  nor  because 
Sunday  trains  are  not  arrested  b}'^  the  legislature :  nor  because  a 
public  permission  is  given  to  the  working  classes  for  a  few  hours' 
recreation  on  the  day  of  rest ;  but  because  we  are  selfish  men  ;  and 
because  we  prefer  pleasure  to  duty,  and  traffic  to  honor ;  and  because 
we  love  our  party  more  than  our  church,  and  our  church  more  than 
our  Christianity,  and  our  Christianity  more  than  truth,  and  our- 
selves more  than  all.  These  are  the  things  that  defile  a  nation ; 
but  the  labor  and  the  recreation  of  its  poor,  these  are  not  the  things 
that  defile  a  nation."  [Sermons,  2d  series,  p.  190.  Boston:  Tick- 
nor  &  Fields,  1858.) 

The  following  extracts  from  Mr.  Robertson's  Biography  will 
explain  the  circumstances  under  which  the  foregoing  discourse  was 
composed  and  preached. 

"On  his  return  from  his  usual  absence  during  October,  he  found 
Brighton  boiling  over  with  excitement  on  the  Sabbath  question. 
It  had  been  proposed  to  open  the  Crystal  Palace  on  Sundays.  It 
was  at  once  inferred  that  Christianity  was  in  mortal  danger,  and,  to 
protect  it  from  its  death-wound,  the  whole  religious  phalanx  of 
Brighton  rallied  around  its  standard.  Large  talking  assemblies 
met  together,  and  the  wildest  and  most  unfounded  assertions  were 
made.     The  '  Times'  was  accused  of  the  grossest  venality,  because 


138  APPENDIX. 

it  defended  the  throwing  open  of  the  Palace ;  but  the  accuser,  a 
clergyman,  was  obliged  to  eat  his  words,  Mr.  Eobertson  alone 
stood  against  the  torrent  in  behalf  of  Christian  liberty.  He  did 
not,  for  several  reasons,  approve  of  the  opening  of  the  Palace  on 
Sunday;  but  he  did  refuse  to  adopt  arguments  against  it,  based  on 
the  supposition  of  the  non-abrogation  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  He 
preached  a  sermon — 'The  Sydenham  Palace,  and  the  Keligious 
Non- Observance  of  the  Sabbath' — on  the  whole  subject,  in  which 
he  declared  that  he  had  satisfied  himself." 


In  writing  to  a  friend,  he  says : 

"November  16,  1852. 

"  My  dear  Tower  :  As  you  will  be  here  next  week,  I  will  not 
write  you  a  volume,,  for  nothing  else  would  do.  I  preached  on  the 
subject  on  Sunday,  satisfactorily  to  myself,  at  least,  a  thing  which 
has  occurred  to  me  but  once  or  twice  in  all  my  ministry ;  so  I  am 
thoroughly  prepared  with  an  opinion  on  a  matter  I  have  well  con- 
sidered. I  will  say  at  present  I  am  resolved  to  sign  no  petition. 
Dr.  V.'s  pamphlet  does  not  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  I  agree 
with  him  in  viewing  the  move,  so  far  as  it  is  an  avowed  innovation, 
with  great  jealousy;  but  I  cannot  ask  for  a  state  enactment  to  re- 
impose  a  law  which  Christianity  has  repealed,  without  yielding  the 
very  principle  of  Christianity.  Historically,  the  Lord's  day  was 
not  a  transference  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  at  all  from  one  day  to 
another.  St.  Paul,  in  Rom.  xiv.  5,  6,  speaks  of  a  religious  non-oh- 
servance  of  the  Sabbath ;  I  cannot  say  or  think  that  the  Crystal 
Palace  affair  is  a  religious  non-observance,  believing  it  to  be  merely 
a  lucrative  speculation ;  nevertheless,  I  have  nothing  to  do  with 
that.  The  Sabbath  is  abrogated,  and  the  observance  of  a  day  of 
rest  is  only  a  most  wise  human  law  now,  not  to  be  enforced  by 
penalties.  Besides,  how  dare  we  refuse  a  public  concession  to  the 
poor  man  of  a  right  of  recreation  which  has  been  long  assumed  by 
the  rich  man  with  no  protest  or  outcry  from  the  clergy,  who  seem 
touched  to  the  quick  only  when  desecration,  as  they  call  it,  is  noisy 
and  vulgar." 

[Mr.  Tower  suggested,  in  answer,  Bishop  Horslcy's  critical  treat- 
ment of  the  question,  and  to  this  letter  he  replied:] 

"  '  Horsley's  Sermons,' I  only  vaguely  remember.     I  am  quite 


APPENDIX.  139 

at  ease  on  the  subject.  The  critical  disposal  of  this  or  that  text 
would  not  alter  my  views.  I  am  certain  of  the  genius  and  spirit 
of  Christianity  ;  certain  of  St.  Paul's  root  thoughts,  far  more  certain 
than  I  can  be  of  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  any  isolated  in- 
terpretation ;  and  I  must  reverse  all  my  conceptions  of  Christianity, 
which  is  the  mind  of  Christ,  before  I  can  believe  the  Evangelico- 

Judaic  theory ;  which  is,  that  Mr. may,  without  infringement 

of  the  fourth  commandment,  drive  his  carriage  to  church  twice 
every  Sunday,  but  a  poor  man  may  not  drive  his  cart ;  that  the  two 
or  three  hours  spent  in  the  evening  by  a  noble  lord  over  venison, 
champagne,  dessert,  and  coffee,  are  no  desecration  of  the  command; 
but  the  same  number  spent  by  an  artisan  over  cheese  and  beer  in  a 
tea-garden  will  bring  down  God's  judgment  on  the  land.  It  is 
worse  than  absurd.  It  is  the  very  spirit  of  that  Pharisaism,  which 
our  Lord  rebuked  so  sternly.     And  then  men  get  upon  platforms,  as 

did,  and  quietly  assume  that  they  are  the  religious,  and  that  all 

who  disagree,  whether  writers  in  the  'Times,'  Sir  R.  Peel,  or  the 
*  sad  exceptions,'  of  whom  I  was  one,  to  which  he  alluded,  are  either 
neologians  or  hired  writers !  Better  break  a  thousand  Sabbaths 
than  lie  and  slander  thus  !  But  the  Sabbath  of  the  Christian  is  the 
consecration  of  all  time  to  God,  of  which  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was 
but  the  type  and  shadow.  See  Col.  ii.  16,  17.  Bishop  Horsley's  at- 
tempt to  get  over  that  verse  is  miserable,  I  remember." 

To  another  he  said,  among  other  things,  in  reply : 

"  I  hold  this  institution  of  the  Lord's  day  to  be  a  most  precious 
and  blessed  one,  not  to  be  dispensed  with  except  with  danger;  and, 
I  believe,  that  no  one  who  loves  his  country  can  look  on  any  measure 
which  is  likely  to  decry  its  observance,  or  break  through  our 
English  feeling  towards  it,  without  great  misgiving  and  apprehen- 
sion." 

After  enumerating  other  objections,  he  expresses  himself  as 
"strongly  opposed  to  every  endeavor  to  put  down  the  Crystal 
Palace  by  petition  or  legislative  enactments,  on  the  three  following 
grounds,"  and  reiterates  the  positions  taken  in  his  sermon. 

"  I  may  much  regret,"  he  says,  "the  probable  tendencies  of  this 
measure  ;  but  still  I  cannot  try  to  forbid  by  law  a  sort  of  recreation 
for  the  poor  man  in  public  gardens  and  public  picture  galleries, 
which  the  rich  man  has  freely  allowed  himself  in  private  gardens 
and  galleries,  with  no  protest  whatever  from  the  clergy." 


140  '  APPENDIX. 

.  .  .  "Whoever  multiplies  enactments  beyond  what  is  essential, 
tempts  human  conscience  to  transgression.  .  .  .  And  I  refuse  to 
sign  such  a  petition  because  to  exalt  a  'law  positive,'  that  is,  a  law 
contrived  for  temporary  special  ends,  into  the  rank  of  a  moral  law 
eternally  binding,  has  always  been  the  first  step  towards  relaxing 
the  reverence  for  that  which  is  moral.  .  .  .  Speaking  of  the  Pliar- 
isees,  he  says : 

.  .  .  "And  so,  in  the  same  way,  there  is  a  tendency  now  to  be 
very  indignant  about  a  poor  man's  spending  Sunday  afternoon  in  a 
tea-garden,  whilst  there  is  little  zeal  against  the  real  damning  sirs 
of  social  life.  .  .  .  Why  do  they  hold  up  hands  of  pious  indigna- 
tion when  a  train  runs  by,  while  more  than  one  religious  person  in 
this  town  (Brighton,  England),  drives  regularly  to  church  on  fine 
days  as  well  as  wet?  Why  do  they  say  it  is  a  crime  to  sacrifice  a 
single  policeman  to  the  comfort  of  the  community  by  making  him 
work  on  the  Sabbath,  when  their  own  servants  are  'sacrificed,' — 
if  it  be  a  sacrifice, — in  making  their  beds,  cleaning  their  rooms, 
boiling  their  luxurious  hot  potations,  &c.,  &c.,  and  none  of  which 
are  works  of  necessity,  or  works  of  mercy  ?  .  .  .  Why  are  they 
touched  to  the  quick  only  when  desecration  of  the  Sabbath  puts  on 
a  vulgar  form  ?  Because,  as  I  said  before,  scrupulosity  about  laws 
♦positive,'  generally  slides  into  laxity  about  the  eternal  laws  of 
right  and  wrong. 

"  Por  all  these  reasons,  I  am  against  the  petition  movement,  and 
strongly  against  it.  Besides,  though  I  look  jealously  and  suspi- 
ciously at  the  Crystal  Palace  plan,  I  am  not  yet  certain  that  it 
may  not  be  an  improvement  on  the  way  in  which  the  poorer  classes 
at  present  spend  their  Sundays." 

His  biographer  remarks :  "  And  yet  he  was  more  particular  in 
his  observance  of  that  day  than  many  of  his  censurers.  He  has 
often  walked  ten  miles  and  more  to  preach  on  a  Sunday,  rather  than 
accept  a  carriage  or  take  a  fly,  and  this  lest  he  should  cause  his  bro- 
ther to  offend.^ ^ 

Life  and  Letters  of  Frederick  W.  Robertson,  incumbent  of  Trin- 
ity Chapel,  Brighton.  Edited  by  Stopford  A.  Brooke,  late  Chap- 
lain, &c.     Boston,  1865.     Vol.  ii.  pp.  111-117. 


INDEX. 


Alexander,    Rev.   J.  W.,  adverse  to 

Sabbatism,  92. 
Apostles   meeting  on  first  day  does 

not    make   commandment   moral, 

120. 
Augustine,  St.,  64. 
Augsburg  Confession,  79,  80. 


Barclay,  93. 

Barnes,  51. 

Barrow,  Rev.  Dr.,  on  Decalogue,  20, 
25. 

Baxter,  25,  85. 

Belsham,  57. 

Beza,  78. 

Blackley  and  Hawes's  Commentary, 
48. 

Blue  Laws.     See  also  Swift,  123. 

Bound,  Rev.  Dr.,  his  celebrated  ser- 
mon, 40,  68. 

Bramhall,  Archbishop,  93. 

Brinley  George,  General  Laws  of 
Connecticut,  124. 

Bucer,  78. 


Calvin  favors  Sunday  sports,  93  ;  also 

54,  55,  86,  92,  96,  121. 
Ceremonial  Law,  24,  26. 
Chalmers,  51,  58. 
Charteris,  16. 
Chemnitz,  78. 
Chillingworth,  19. 
Christians,  Primitive,  60. 
Coleman,  Rev.  Dr.,  on   "Sabbath," 

70. 
Colossians.     See  Texts. 


Constantino's  Edict,  61. 

Coquerei,  A.,  8.}. 

Cox,  Robert,  on   "Sabbath  Laws," 

12,  25. 
Cox,  Robert,  on  the  Glasgow  clergy, 

55. 
Cranmer,  76,  84,  104. 


Daille's  Commentaries,  52. 
Dyer,  Mary,  the  Martyr,  121. 


Eadie,  58. 

Episcopal  Church  and  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, 69. 
Eusebius,  61. 


Faldo  and  Penn,  118. 

Fathers,  Sabbath  and  Sunday,  dis- 
tinguished by  them,  63,  64. 

Fourth  Commandment  not  moral, 
says  Penn,  1 19. 

Fourth  Commandment  inoperative, 
125. 

Fox,  George,  121. 

French  Protestant  Catechism,  83. 


Geology,  as  connected  with  Sabbath, 

11,  12. 
Gillies,  Rev.  Dr.,  53. 


Hallam,  67. 

Hanna,  Rev.  Dr.,  16. 

Hallywell,  118. 


13 


142 


INDEX. 


Heidelberg  Catechism,  80,  82. 
Helvetian  Confession,  83. 
Hengstenberg,   77. 
Hetherington,  Rev.  Dr.,  80. 
Heylin,  Peter,  75,  121. 
Hoadley,  C.  J.,  "New  Haven's  Set- 
tling,'" 124. 
Hodge,  Rev.  Dr.,  51. 
Horsley,  Bishop,  138,  139. 


Ignatius,  62. 
Institutes,  Calvin's,  86. 
Irenaeus,  20. 
Ironside,  Bishop,  121. 


Johnson,  Dr.,  attack  on  Milton,  96. 
Justin,  62,  64. 


Kenrick,    John,  on  Primeval    Sab- 
bath, 12. 


Locke,  58. 

Lorimer,  Rev.  Dr.,  56. 

Luther,  72. 


Macduff,  Rev.  Dr.,  approves  of  open- 
ing parks  on  Sunday.  16,  17. 

Macleod,  Rev.  Dr.  Norman,  his  man- 
ly course  on  the  Sunday  question, 
15. 

Macleod,  Rev.  Dr.  Norman,  on  the 
Decalogue,  16. 

McCrie,  Rev.  Dr.,  25. 

Melancthon,  76,  79,  80. 

Milton,  19,  78,  96. 

Montanists,  62. 

Moral  Laws,  22,  24  ;  immutable,  31. 

Morality  of  Fourth  Commandment, 
2L 


Neander,  60,  62. 

New  England  Laws,  severity  of  their 

character,  121. 
Newton,  58. 


Owen,  Rev.  Dr.,  on  Patriarchal  Sab- 
bath, 19. 


Palatine  Catechism,  82. 
Patriarchal  Sabbath  denied,  82. 
Penn  and  the  "  Sabbath,"  117. 
Penn  asserts  Fourth  Commandment 

not  moral,  119. 
Pilgrim    Fathers'  and    Forefathers' 

day,  124. 
Plumtre,  Rev.  E.  W.,    on  Sunday, 

15. 
Plymouth  Records,  121. 
Powell,   Rev.    B.,   11,  21,  23,  31,  38. 

49,  50,  60,  61,  63,  64,  66,  70,77,  80. 
Presbyterian  Review  admits  Sabbath 

is  ceremonial,  not  moral,  26. 
Prideaux,  78. 
Primeval   Sabbath,  no  evidence  of, 

12. 
Primitive  Christians,  60. 
Puritan  and  the  Quaker,  116. 


Quaker  and  the  Puritan,  115. 
Quakers,  New  England  Laws  against, 
121. 


Racovian  Catechism,  82. 
Robertson,  Rev.  Frederick  W.,  133. 
Rice,  Rev.  Dr.  N.  L.,  92. 


Sabbath,  if  binding,  is  strictly  so,  31. 

Rev.  Dr.  Bound,  founder 
of  Puritan  Sabbath,  40, 
68. 

as  connected  with  creation, 
11. 

its  compulsory  observance 
dangerous,  41. 

Rev.  Dr.  Coleman  on,  70. 

Christian,  a  phrase,  Jew- 
ish in  its  spirit,  118. 

no  distinction  between  it 
and  the  seventh  day,  29. 

no  evidence  of  its  sanctifi- 
cation  prior  to  Moses, 
10,  15. 

and  Geology,  11. 

Luther's  views,  19,  72. 

non-morality  of,  24,  26. 

if  moral,  cannot  be  chan- 
ged, 32. 

opinions  of  Neander,  60. 

not  Patriarchal,  19,  20. 


INDEX. 


143 


Sabbath,  use  of  word  repudiated  by 
Penn,  117. 
permanency  of  disproved, 

9. 
Presbyterian  Review  (Scot- 
tish), admits  it  to  be  cere- 
monial, not  moral,  26. 
no  evidence  of  a  primeval, 

11. 
Puritan,  arose  after  the  Re- 
formation, 67. 
Puritan,     and     Rev.     Dr. 

Bound,  40,  68. 
testimony    of    Reformers, 

72. 
totally  repealed,  133. 
rigor  of  injurious  to  con- 
science, 135. 
natural  impulse  to  adore  a 

Supreme  Being,  21. 
Rev.  Dr.  South  asserts  not 

morally  binding,  25. 
special  reasons  for  its   en- 
actment, 28. 
no    scriptural    warrant   of 

substitution,  35. 
and  Sunday,  distinguished 

by  Fathers,  63, 
and   Sunday,  extract  from 

Hallam,  68. 
is  identical  with  the  seventh 

day,  76. 
Swift's  system  of  laws,  123. 
exclusively  Jewish,  72. 
festival  of  joy,  60. 
Sanctity,  periodical,  23. 
St.  Barnabas,  60. 
St.    Paul   in   Colossians,    Galatians, 

Romans.     See  Texts. 
Scott,  Commentaries,  53. 
Seventh,  the  figure  mystical,  10. 
Seventh  day,   not  morally  binding, 
127. 


Seventh  day,  its  alleged  sanctifioa- 
tion  denied,  15. 

Seventh  day  is  identical  with  Sab- 
bath, 52,  76. 

South,  Rev.  Dr.,  on  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, 25. 

Stuart,  Rev.  Dr.  Moses,  54. 

Sunday,  Rev.  E.  H.  Plumtre  on 
"  Sunday"  in  Contemporary  Re- 
view, 15. 

Sunday  as  to  the  disciples,  36. 

Sunday  festival  of  joy  with  Primi- 
tive Christians,  62. 

Sunday  nor  Sabbath  morally  bind- 
ing according  to  St.  Paul.  See 
Texts. 

Sylloge  Confess.,  81,  82. 


Taylor,  Jeremy,  26. 
Tertullian,  20,  62. 

Texts,  silence  as  to  or  suppresion  of, 
55. 
misapplication  of,  43. 
Romans,  xiv.  5th  and  6th,  43, 
49,  51,  54,  56,  85,  87,  89, 
103,  127,  133,  138. 
Gal.  iv.   10  and  11 ;  43,  46, 

54,  89,  118. 
Col.  ii.  16  and  17;  43,48,  49, 
52,  54,   55,   74,  85,  87,  89, 
118,  120,  124. 
Theology,  a   science  of  precedents, 

125. 
Thorold,  Rev.  Mr.,  16. 
Tyndale,  78. 


Warburton,  Bishop,  67. 
Wardlaw,  Rev.  Dr.,  57. 
Westminster  Assembly,  101. 
Whately,  Archbishop,  101. 


